• 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

givejonadollar

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
9
Reaction score
4
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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?
 
BARACK OBAMA. I detest Ron Paul's foreign policy more than I detest Obama's.
 
Ron Paul, as if I even needed to say.
 
I'd vote for Sarah Palin LOOOOOONG before I vote for Ron Paul.
 
Loaded question. I'd vote for a jar of mustard if it ran against Obama.

I am not in love with Ron Paul. I don't like his foreign policy. His domestic policies are pretty good though, and when I determine who I vote for I usually go 70/30 domestic over foreign.

I'd vote for Ron Paul, but he'd have to give up the "cantankerous old man" persona. Nobody wants to vote for a man who looks like the angry gray-haired next door neighbor who yelled at kids walking on his lawn.
 
Obama in a heartbeat. I think Paul's domestic policy is completely unrealistic and his foreign policy is two steps short of suicide.
 
I think Ron Paul is a very likable guy. He is right about some things. However, being that I would just assume our National Parks were not sold off to developers to turn into a bunch of gated Vails, I don't think I could vote for him.
 
I don't really support Ron Paul, in fact I despise his foreign policy. However I'd rather have him in office over Obama.
 
Of the vast array of policy agendas Paul would have, i only believe he could accomplish ending the war on drugs, and balance the budget.

He cannot abolish the Fed.

He cannot abolish the federal income tax.

He cannot end SS or Medicaid/Medicare.
----------------------------------------------------------

For him to even win the Republican ticket, Dr. Paul would have to abandon the three pillars stated above.
 
I don't really support Ron Paul, in fact I despise his foreign policy. However I'd rather have him in office over Obama.

You sympathize with nation building. How...... Neoconservative of you.:2wave:
 
You sympathize with nation building. How...... Neoconservative of you.:2wave:

Wait what? Sympathize with nation building? My biggest beef with Paul is his stance on Israel and the War on Terror.
 
You sympathize with nation building. How...... Neoconservative of you.:2wave:

Historically speaking, can you think of a time when America hasn't engaged in nation building?
 
I know nothing of Paul's foreign policy, but I assume it is noninterventionalist, which I would support.

I think his domestic policy would destroy the country though and I consider domestic policy to be far more important since I live in this country and not abroad.

My only problem with Obama is that he is too beholden to business.
 
Historically speaking, can you think of a time when America hasn't engaged in nation building?

Back when we were first founded in the 1700's :mrgreen: Technically we were building ourselves. I am all for supporting and helping out our allies like Israel. However i am a little skeptical about the War on Terror. I would like to see a stronger national defense and less of a militant (not military) presence around the world. However we should help our allies and remove regimes that threaten our national security.
 
Based on the responses I have seen so far, the Liberals do seem to side with war. Liberals have gotten us into the vast majority of our wars, including Vietnam. Iraq is the only exception. You think the Liberals' opposition to Iraq was because a Republican was in office?

**DanaRhea stirs the pot**

:mrgreen:
 
Back when we were first founded in the 1700's :mrgreen: Technically we were building ourselves. I am all for supporting and helping out our allies like Israel. However i am a little skeptical about the War on Terror. I would like to see a stronger national defense and less of a militant (not military) presence around the world. However we should help our allies and remove regimes that threaten our national security.

The problem I find is the notion that 'nation building' is something new to our country. We started nation building the minute we ourselves became a nation. We've had our hands in Mexico for over 200 years and as the culture of globalism has expanded we've only dug deeper and deeper into other countries. Latin America has been the U.S.'s little experiment in nation building for only the last 120 years. It is really sad that people think we only started being intrusive during the cold war.
 
Historically speaking, can you think of a time when America hasn't engaged in nation building?

Not the point. You will hear many on the libertarian isle call for a "Laissez Faire" economic policy similar to the 18th and 19th century. However, "laissez faire" has only existed in third world nations and in the theoretical realm. The US has never held an actual "hands off" approach to the economy. This does not mean the government should "manage" the economy because of historical track records.

The US government has not always been in the business of nation building. I can think of many decades in which we were not setting up so called democracies in culturally non democratic parts of the world.
 
Based on the responses I have seen so far, the Liberals do seem to side with war. Liberals have gotten us into the vast majority of our wars, including Vietnam. Iraq is the only exception. You think the Liberals' opposition to Iraq was because a Republican was in office?

**DanaRhea stirs the pot**

:mrgreen:

Well first of all, the tally so far at the point of your post is:
Libertarian 5
Conservative 2
Unknown 1
Liberal 3
Centrist 1
Ind. 4

Of those three liberal posts. Two were Hatuey's. Here they are.

I'd vote for Sarah Palin LOOOOOONG before I vote for Ron Paul.

Historically speaking, can you think of a time when America hasn't engaged in nation building?

And one was mine:

I know nothing of Paul's foreign policy, but I assume it is noninterventionalist, which I would support.

I think his domestic policy would destroy the country though and I consider domestic policy to be far more important since I live in this country and not abroad.

My only problem with Obama is that he is too beholden to business.

I stated that I would prefer a less interventionalist foreign policy.

Hatuey stated that he would vote for palin before paul and that America has on some level been involved in nation building, which may or may not include war.

I see no evidence to support your assertion.
 
The problem I find is the notion that 'nation building' is something new to our country. We started nation building the minute we ourselves became a nation. We've had our hands in Mexico for over 200 years and as the culture of globalism has expanded we've only dug deeper and deeper into other countries. Latin America has been the U.S.'s little experiment in nation building for only the last 120 years. It is really sad that people think we only started being intrusive during the cold war.

We have wrongly dabbled in other nations for a very long time, and I am against this. I am for making smart alliances, but I am against dabbling into another nation and "building" them.
 
Not the point. You will hear many on the libertarian isle call for a "Laissez Faire" economic policy similar to the 18th and 19th century. However, "laissez faire" has only existed in third world nations and in the theoretical realm. The US has never held an actual "hands off" approach to the economy. This does not mean the government should "manage" the economy because of historical track records.

The US government has not always been in the business of nation building. I can think of many decades in which we were not setting up so called democracies in culturally non democratic parts of the world.

My point was that calling him 'neo-conservative' for supporting strong foreign policy is kind of dishonest. If anything neo-conservativism is an approach to foreign policy. One which is very precise about where it wants to do the 'nation building'(the Middle East). I support strong foreign policy but I believe it should be measured. Not knee-jerk reactions to please either the left or right.
 
Wait what? Sympathize with nation building? My biggest beef with Paul is his stance on Israel and the War on Terror.

"The war on terror"? :lamo

You mean like the pathetic attempts to keep airliners safe? Or.... Invading Iraq because they had mobile bomb factories?

BTW; Israel can take care of itself.
 
"The war on terror"? :lamo

You mean like the pathetic attempts to keep airliners safe? Or.... Invading Iraq because they had mobile bomb factories?

BTW; Israel can take care of itself.

America wasn't the only nation that believed Iraq had WMDs. We went to war while much of the world had good reason to believe that Sadam had them.

And Israel can take care of itself, but we should help them considering the Arab nationalism that wants to eradicate them.
 
My point was that calling him 'neo-conservative' for supporting strong foreign policy is kind of dishonest. If anything neo-conservativism is an approach to foreign policy. One which is very precise about where it wants to do the 'nation building'(the Middle East). I support strong foreign policy but I believe it should be measured. Not knee-jerk reactions to please either the left or right.

From his posting record, he can be accurately be labeled a neo-con. I do not believe a strong foreign policy is mutually exclusive to global military bases that overstretch our entire military.

Neo-cons cheer for the war on terror. Yet nobody has a clue how many "enemies of the state" pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. It kinda flies in the face of logic to believe the best way to keep this country safe is to deploy troops all over the globe. Even if it to "ensure" our investments are safe.

Unless of course you view it perfectly acceptable for China to build military bases all over Africa.
 
From his posting record, he can be accurately be labeled a neo-con. I do not believe a strong foreign policy is mutually exclusive to global military bases that overstretch our entire military.

Neo-cons cheer for the war on terror. Yet nobody has a clue how many "enemies of the state" pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. It kinda flies in the face of logic to believe the best way to keep this country safe is to deploy troops all over the globe. Even if it to "ensure" our investments are safe.

Unless of course you view it perfectly acceptable for China to build military bases all over Africa.

Well then in your opinion I'm a neocon. In my opinion and my views I am not. But meh, label me if you want to.

Btw, I am not cheering for the War on Terror. I previously said I had mixed feelings. Truth be told I think Iraq was handled very poorly and that we should have waited and validated information before we charged in. I do support military bases, but for national security reasons. I am against pushing American influence into non-hostile nations and making them out to be miniature American states. I am all for people governing their countries. If the people want some ultra communist state then I have no problem with that. If a country is war torn and through a coup becomes communist I do have a problem with it, but I don't think It's America's job to fix that either.
 
Back
Top Bottom