• 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!

2012 Poll for those who do not want to vote for Obama [again]....

Who would you most likely support?

  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 13 34.2%
  • Sarah Palin

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Newt Gingrich

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Gary Johnson

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Bobby Jindal

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Mike Huckabee

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Jeb Bush

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Paul Ryan

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Other conservative or libertarian candidate

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • Total voters
    38
If I did vote for someone besides Obama and it was on the other side, Ron Paul is the only one I would. However I agree that some of the stuff he says is crazy, he subscribes to conspiracy theories more often than not, and while he may be right in many instances, it completely is at odds with Republicans and in most cases mainstream Democrats as well. Some could argue that he is incredibly liberal when it comes to things such as the war on drugs and war in general, but an ultra-con on other things.

Still, other than the whole being racist and crazy part he isn't to bad.
 
He's too weird? Why? Because his arguments actually use logic rather than politics?

Too weird because his views are 1. extremist and 2. way too distant from what a vast majority of Americans (and Republicans) believe in.

And of course he uses "politics" as much as any other politician does. That you agree with his arguments doesn't make them ineherently more logical than anyone else's arguments; this type of condescension from Ron Paul supporters is a huge part of the reason why so many people have come to hate him so much.
 
I've liked Huckabee for quite some time, if he can minimize the Bible-thumping.

I like Mike Huckabee and I admire Mike Huckabee, but I could never vote for Mike Huckabee.

My pick out of the candidates listed would be Mitt Romney. I could support Newt Gingrich, but frankly all his talk about "paganism" frightens me.
 
Last edited:
Too weird because his views are 1. extremist and 2. way too distant from what a vast majority of Americans (and Republicans) believe in.

And of course he uses "politics" as much as any other politician does. That you agree with his arguments doesn't make them ineherently more logical than anyone else's arguments; this type of condescension from Ron Paul supporters is a huge part of the reason why so many people have come to hate him so much.

To your first point, just how are his views extremist? It seems to me that politicians who want to invade third-world countries willy-nilly without a declaration of war are extremist. It seems to me that politicians who want the Federal Reserve, a private institution, to govern the value of our currency, are extremist. It seems to me that politicians who support a failing and pointless "War on Drugs" that have cost the taxpayers millions of dollars are extremist. And it seems to me that politicians that don't recognize the danger of "blowback" in the interferece in foreign affairs are extremist.

To your second point, where do you get your information as to what a majority of Americans and Republicans believe in? So few people vote in elections and polls, it really is hard to tell, and I don't pretend to know where we are now.

However, we can look at history. Historically, Republicans like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater opposed many of the things that today's Republican Party stands for, including interventionism. The election of the far-right Ronald Reagan really pushed the Republican Party into a new era, governed by "Neo-Conservatives." In truth, people like Goldwater, Taft, and Paul were once considered to be quite in the Center of the political specturm. Once the Neo-Conservatives came into power, however, they were painted as "weirdos" and "extremists."

Final point: You hear an animal quacking. Logic says that it is a duck.

You see far-left extremists in Iran overthrow a dictator that we help to install, in favor of a dictator that they install. This dictator tries to turn his people against the country that installed the first dictator. Other countries whose affairs we have interfered with also come to hate this country. Logic says that our interference in these countries caused this hatred. This is what Ron Paul says. According to televised debates from the 2008 elections, pretty much every other candidate thought that this idea was nonsense. Giuliani even wanted an apology. You might not see it as that way, but then again, you might not think that the animal is a duck.
 
To your first point, just how are his views extremist? It seems to me that politicians who want to invade third-world countries willy-nilly without a declaration of war are extremist. It seems to me that politicians who want the Federal Reserve, a private institution, to govern the value of our currency, are extremist. It seems to me that politicians who support a failing and pointless "War on Drugs" that have cost the taxpayers millions of dollars are extremist. And it seems to me that politicians that don't recognize the danger of "blowback" in the interferece in foreign affairs are extremist.

That's great, but it doesn't matter what it seems to you. Extremism is relative. And relative to the rest of the country, most of Ron Paul's views are extreme.

To your second point, where do you get your information as to what a majority of Americans and Republicans believe in? So few people vote in elections and polls, it really is hard to tell, and I don't pretend to know where we are now.

Well, elections are one good indicator. It doesn't matter how many people don't vote, because those who vote are the only ones whose opinions matter, policy wise. And voters (outside of his Texas Congressional district) overwhelmingly reject Ron Paul. Polls also show this, using a random sample of Americans (some of whom don't even vote) to draw conclusions about the views of the country as a whole within a margin of error. In actual scientific polls (and not straw polls which he floods with his supporters), Ron Paul is a distant fringe.

However, we can look at history. Historically, Republicans like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater opposed many of the things that today's Republican Party stands for, including interventionism. The election of the far-right Ronald Reagan really pushed the Republican Party into a new era, governed by "Neo-Conservatives."

"Interventionism" is very broad and general, and not just something most people are either for or against. I don't know why you seem to think that Goldwater was "anti-interventionist", but his Cold Warrior-esque rhetoric was so extreme that it in part led to his defeat in 1964.
Also, Goldwater supported Eisenhower over Taft in 1952, so I don't know why you'd lump the two together as having one foreign policy.
Maybe you should read this, which is written from a non-interventionist perspective: The Mises Review: Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus by Rick Perlstein and and

And finally, "neo-conservative" obviously does not mean whatever you think it means. I suggest you look it up.

In truth, people like Goldwater, Taft, and Paul were once considered to be quite in the Center of the political specturm.

This is a very strange thing to say, considering the 1964 Presidential election. Goldwater lost by one of the largest margins ever, in large part because not only was he labeled and considered an extremist, he practically admitted to having extremist views.

You see far-left extremists in Iran overthrow a dictator that we help to install, in favor of a dictator that they install. This dictator tries to turn his people against the country that installed the first dictator. Other countries whose affairs we have interfered with also come to hate this country. Logic says that our interference in these countries caused this hatred. This is what Ron Paul says. According to televised debates from the 2008 elections, pretty much every other candidate thought that this idea was nonsense. Giuliani even wanted an apology. You might not see it as that way, but then again, you might not think that the animal is a duck.

You can argue all of this, but logic does not prove it to be true in any sense. In complicated situations like foreign affairs, there are so many factors at play it is pretty much impossible to determine with certainty what causes what and why. Taking one's own views as flawless logic comes across as condescension, which again, is why so many people have come to hate everything associated with Ron Paul.
 
Ron Paul is 76 years old; he'll be nearly 80 by election time.
I can't imagine him handling the travails of the campaign trail.
 
I like the Newt. Frankly, president Clinton could not have been as successful without him. The boy's got lotsa baggage, though. So I'm keeping an eye on Gov Chris Christie.

If Obama were ousted by a Dem, I would love to see Hillary run. I would consider voting for her depending on the Repub she runs against. And no, it's not a woman thing. I think she's got some serious balls, and the country needs that ASAP.
 
Ron Paul gets my vote. It's not even a question.
 
I like the Newt. Frankly, president Clinton could not have been as successful without him. The boy's got lotsa baggage, though. So I'm keeping an eye on Gov Chris Christie.

If Obama were ousted by a Dem, I would love to see Hillary run. I would consider voting for her depending on the Repub she runs against. And no, it's not a woman thing. I think she's got some serious balls, and the country needs that ASAP.

I like Hillary, too.
I think she'd be a good president.
I got in an argument with my dad during 2008 because he said, "If she doesn't get the nomination this time, she won't run again. It's her only chance."
I asked why, and he said, "She'll be too old in 2012."
I was like, "She's not that old, she's only like sixty."
And he said, "For a woman, that's too old. Nobody would vote for her."

I hope that's not true. I mean, what, do you have to look like Sarah Palin to run for president?
Everybody's always said Hillary was ugly anyway, so why should they care if she's now old as well as ugly?

I think she'd be a good president.
But I like Obama pretty well, too.
Either one is fine with me.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul is 76 years old; he'll be nearly 80 by election time.
I can't imagine him handling the travails of the campaign trail.

That's what they said about Ralph Nader. He managed, though.

If Ron Paul doesn't run, then Gary Johnson will in his place. I highly doubt that they'll both run, when they fill the same niche; either one or the other will.
 
Lol Ralph Nader. He needs his own sitcom.
 
That's what they said about Ralph Nader. He managed, though.

If Ron Paul doesn't run, then Gary Johnson will in his place. I highly doubt that they'll both run, when they fill the same niche; either one or the other will.

If Ron Paul won, he'd be 83 at the end of his first term, nearly 90 by the end of his second.
Ain't gonna happen.
 
He's too weird? Why? Because his arguments actually use logic rather than politics?

Oh, please. His arguments are just as political as anyone else. Stop sounding like a true believer.
Again: Or a logic that refuses to look at the logic of politics....or a logic that perhaps is unlikely to succeed....or a logic that will probably alienate a majority of his party and a vast majority of those with liberal sentiment.
 
To your first point, just how are his views extremist? It seems to me that politicians who want to invade third-world countries willy-nilly without a declaration of war are extremist. It seems to me that politicians who want the Federal Reserve, a private institution, to govern the value of our currency, are extremist. It seems to me that politicians who support a failing and pointless "War on Drugs" that have cost the taxpayers millions of dollars are extremist. And it seems to me that politicians that don't recognize the danger of "blowback" in the interferece in foreign affairs are extremist.

To your second point, where do you get your information as to what a majority of Americans and Republicans believe in? So few people vote in elections and polls, it really is hard to tell, and I don't pretend to know where we are now.

However, we can look at history. Historically, Republicans like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater opposed many of the things that today's Republican Party stands for, including interventionism. The election of the far-right Ronald Reagan really pushed the Republican Party into a new era, governed by "Neo-Conservatives." In truth, people like Goldwater, Taft, and Paul were once considered to be quite in the Center of the political specturm. Once the Neo-Conservatives came into power, however, they were painted as "weirdos" and "extremists."

Final point: You hear an animal quacking. Logic says that it is a duck.

You see far-left extremists in Iran overthrow a dictator that we help to install, in favor of a dictator that they install. This dictator tries to turn his people against the country that installed the first dictator. Other countries whose affairs we have interfered with also come to hate this country. Logic says that our interference in these countries caused this hatred. This is what Ron Paul says. According to televised debates from the 2008 elections, pretty much every other candidate thought that this idea was nonsense. Giuliani even wanted an apology. You might not see it as that way, but then again, you might not think that the animal is a duck.

The Welfare state, a la The New Deal is the political reality for better or for worse. Acceptance of this basic fact is what made contemporary conservatism successful, and why so many of your ilk complain about neoconservatives in the first place. An appeal to history is only as successful as those who are willing to return to such an era, even in any modest direction. This is why true believers are only good on paper and in oratory, while reality hits them in the face with the force of God once they receive power, because the masses want some, but not many, or want little if any of the concrete changes one imposes. Then, one has to come to the immense reality that is not only want one needs to be concerned with, but actual effects. The appeal to history is tempting to make, though any student of history should realize that there are indeed severe limitations to the concrete applicability of said historical lessons.
 
Last edited:
Except for Gary Johnson (don't know him) all are good in my opinion. I chose other because I am hoping someone even better will step up to the plate. Possibly someone like Herman Cain. Also, I keep seeing what seems like great conservatives recently and think to myself "hey, he might be presidential material. For instance I was impressed by VA attorney general Ken Cuccinelli the other day.
Anyway, I am hoping for new faces rather than the same ol' same ol'.
 
He's too weird? Why? Because his arguments actually use logic rather than politics?
No, because he is just too damn weird. He looks weird. He acts weird. Americans will NEVER elect him. We are a VERY appearance-conscious country. That's part of why Mc lost--besides being as old as the cryptkeeper. I actually agree with a lot of what Paul stands for. I would just never waste a vote on him. He needs a MASSIVE makeover.
 
A question for people who blasted Obama on experience: Do you think Paul is experienced enough to be president, seeing as he's never held office higher than Congressman?
 
A question for people who blasted Obama on experience: Do you think Paul is experienced enough to be president, seeing as he's never held office higher than Congressman?

I didn't bash Obama because of experience. I wanted Ron Paul to win but Obama won. I gave him a chance and he failed. More bailouts, our troops aren't home, he failed to address monetary policy, GITMO is still in operation, reinstated the "patriot" act, forced Americans to buy health insurance which actually hurts the poor, etc etc etc.

Ron Paul has a consistent voting record, he doesn't participate in the Congressional pension program, he's studied and understands Austrian economics, he's pro liberty, he's the only politician that has openly stated he's for abolishing the Federal Reserve, Department of Education, etc etc.

He's voted against the Iraq war, against regulating the Internet, he supports a noninterventionist foreign policy.

He is a champion of the Constitution.

His ideas help the poor, help the country as a whole and restore peace between the US and other nations.

He's more than qualified.
 
Last edited:
I didn't bash Obama because of experience. I wanted Ron Paul to win but Obama won. I gave him a chance and he failed. More bailouts, our troops aren't home, he failed to address monetary policy, GITMO is still in operation, reinstated the "patriot" act, forced Americans to buy health insurance which actually hurts the poor, etc etc etc.

Ron Paul has a consistent voting record, he doesn't participate in the Congressional pension program, he's studied and understands Austrian economics, he's pro liberty, he's the only politician that has openly stated he's for abolishing the Federal Reserve, Department of Education, etc etc.

He's voted against the Iraq war, against regulating the Internet, he supports a noninterventionist foreign policy.

He is a champion of the Constitution.

His ideas help the poor, help the country as a whole and restore peace between the US and other nations.

He's more than qualified.

So in other words, my question wasn't directed at all towards you. You seem very earnest, but it usually helps to give answers that have something to do with the question.
 
I know. I just posted my opinion anyway. Sorry for not clarifying that. My mind is all over the place today.
 
I know. I just posted my opinion anyway. Sorry for not clarifying that. My mind is all over the place today.

Do you think serving as a Representative gives him enough experience to run the country?
 
he's for abolishing the Federal Reserve...He's voted against the Iraq war...he supports a noninterventionist foreign policy.

I am against him for these reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom