Would Ron Paul suffacte Barack Obama in a debate?

Yes,that is the trickery Ron Paul uses to attract Vets and also his
donations.Paul knows Vets like other Vets.But do Vets know or care that
Ron Paul wants to basically eliminate our Military Machine.See's no
reason for us as Superpower or even a large Military.Defying what helped
make this country Great and the Lone force in the world.

 

Yeah, and while you are at it, show me Romney's ribbons, and Newts, and Mr. Cain's. This is stupid. What makes Paul's foriegn policy better than anyone else's is that he doesn't hide his head in the sand and declare that US can't lose. We are broke. If you think that isn't important, then watch and see what happens next.

 

I agree that RP isn't much of a debater, but we haven't seen much of a debate from anyone yet. What we've seen is soundbite politics and, if you listen, most of the other candidates are grafting some of RP's ideas into their talking points. I guess it's because he's a crazy loon, right?

A point of correction on the Kennedy/Nixon debate. Nixon was battling the flu the night of the debate and also refused to wear any makeup. The sweating was because he had a fever, not because of Kennedy getting the best of him.

Funny enough, those that watched that debate had Kennedy as the winner and those that listened on the radio thought Nixon had one.

 

I didn't vote because I didn't' agree with the "I'm hooked" part of the "No".

Maybe when people post polls in the future they will at least have the gallantry to keep their bias out of it and give voters valid options.

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas on foreign policy but comes across as too pleading and whiny in debate. But you can't convince the Paulist worshipers that their hero can do any wrong.


Bro

 

That is correct.Nixon wasn't well.But the lights were bearing down
on the Podiums.And yes,Nixon also passed on the face flour.
Nixon actually did pretty well until J.F.K. pulled that stunt about
Cuba.Nixon rang off his experience { sat on the National Security Council,
been in the Cabinet,met with the Legislative leaders,35 Presidents,
9 Prime Ministers, 2 Emperors and the Shah of Iran }.

 

You complain about the OP showing a bias in his polling question, but have no problem calling RP supporters 'Paulist worshippers'. OK.

I don't know where you get where RP is pleading and whiny. All a matter of perspective, but do you prefer style over substance? If that's the case, support Romney. He'll be the prefect candidate to you, at least for a day or so until the wind blows another way.

Seriously, this country needs a president that will get us on track. It's not Obama and it's not any of the other Republican candidates. Perry can't string together one complete thought, Cain is toast, Romney flops like a trout on the pier and Gingrich is flat out lying about his stances on many issues, as seen by his record. That record, BTW, will be fully exposed as he rises in the polls.

So what's left? Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman and Paul. Oh, yeah, there's Johnson, but he can't make it to the debate stage so he has zero chance.

I'll take Ron Paul. He's not perfect, but he's genuine and honest. What you see is what you get. And yes, with the country in the shape that it's in, the issues are with Paul so he could absolutely beat Obama.

 

I think we're talking about different debates. There were 4, from doing a quick search. I was only 4 years old at the tome, so obviously don't remember them. I was going by what I have heard, probably from a History Channel show.

Anyway, what you say is correct about the 4th debate and what I said is correct about the 1st debate.

About the 1st debate......

The first general election presidential debate, televised or otherwise. What is most remembered and discussed is the telegenic "image" presented by Kennedy and the decidedly non-telegenic presence of Nixon. Nixon didn't wear make-up, was recovering from the flu and had lost weight, and suffered from a knee injury. He also wore a gray suit, which provided little contrast with the background set. Kennedy wore a dark suit, wore make-up (though he already looked tan), and was coached on how to sit (legs crossed) and what to do when he wasn't speaking (look at Nixon).

About the 4th debate......

The news out of the fourth debate was Cuba, and Kennedy's day-before statement that the U.S. government should support "non-Batista democratic anti-Castro forces in exile ... who offer eventual hope of overthrowing Castro." Nixon called Kennedy's plan "dangerously irresponsible" but actually supported the idea in private. The issue helped Kennedy look tougher on Cuba than Nixon. The remainder of the debate was a reiteration of previous themes.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/1960/

 

if the lamestream media actually aired it live,oh yeah,no doubt.He would humiliate him,thats why it will never take place.

 

He just trolls everywhere he goes making one moronic post full of lies after another with nothing to back his ramblings up with and never admiiting when he has been proven wrong.

 

that would be wise since his advise would be as moronic as his posts are.Funny no matter how many people shoot down his pitiful ramblings he keeps coming back for more humiliation all the time.

 

He is simply here to troll,nothing else,best thing to do is put him on ignore and dont give him the attention he seeks.

 

Paul maybe whines in a debate but he is the ONLY one that believes in the constitution and serving the people instead of the establishment and THAT is a fact and why americans are ignorant if they vote for any other candidate other than him.Unless of course they want to keep having their liberties stripped away from them,then go ahead and vote for the other puppets for the establishment by all means.

 

I won't dispute this..I admit, I have gone back and forth on Ron Paul. Someone sent me one of his audio books and I made it 3/4 of the way through. One thing I will say, he has read the 9-11 Commission Report, and has the good sense to take it seriously. However, he has no plans to do anything about campaign finance reform, he claims, naively, that it is unfortunate, but that the constitution prohibits the gov from doing anything about it. Unbelievable. There were some other howlers in there too. John Huntsman has similar views on foreign policy and has the correct view on campaign finances.

What's that you say ? Huntsman has no chance ? Until he is officially eliminated, his "electability" is not my concern..


Bro

 

No, Paul would defeat Paul and Obama would just sit back and watch it happen.

 

who wants a whiner for president?

 

What difference does it make to the fact that you will not talk about the substance of his comment.

Obviously it is you who does not understand Mises which is why you are afraid to address his comment.

 

He never addresses facts,he always dodges facts that refute his ramblings.why people even bother talking to this guy because of that is beyond me.

 

the first part of the comment is akin to saying what goes up must come down, a no-brainer

in regards to there being no means of avoiding a collapse, like death, i think it's best avoided or postponed in most cases

which particular fact do you think i'm dodging?

 

unless they enjoy humiliating him and takling him to school everyday that is.That i can understand.He gets his rear end handed to him on a platter here everyday.

 

does that mean you can't name any particular fact you think i'm dodging?

 

Everything you type leads to the conclusion being that of an Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem and I already proved my point. Which the "I already proved it" leads to the previous Ad Hominem attacks towards other posters or other people in History.

 

no, you don't understand what 'proved' means