The Instigator
wingnut2280
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
sccrplyr40
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,010 times Debate No: 2459
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

wingnut2280

Pro

I think Ron Paul and Mike Bloomberg and anyone else for that matter, should run as extra-party candidates for president.

I think at this point we can realistically infer that Paul will not win the Republican nomination. Paul supporters, please don't argue with me here, this isn't my position.

In this election, perhaps more so than any other election in recent memory, there is an overwhelming part of the voting population who will remain vastly unrepresented by either of the major party candidates, no matter who they are. Therefore, in the interest of making America a better democracy, we should have major extra-party candidates run in November, particularly Paul and Bloomberg as they have been rumored to do so.

I write this somewhat out of personal interest. If there is a McCain-Hillary November I think I am going to write in Newt Gingrich.
sccrplyr40

Con

I would like to thank you for making this debate.

I would like to start off by saying that I am a Ron Paul supporter but will stick to the debate topic and not stray off onto the issues represented in politics this year.

You a presenting that Paul and Bloomberg run as 'extra-party' candidates for this November election. First off, Bloomberg has stated he will not run for president despite the rumors, so until he makes it 'official' he cannot be included in this debate.

Now, onto Ron Paul. He is staying in the Republican party until the end, because should there be a brokered convention he would still have a chance at winning. The media does not present him as a candidate and therefore not many people know about him. Should there be a brokered convention, he would be able to present his ideas to America along with the rest of the candidates remaining without being limited in his 'air-time'. He has more delegates than the media projects even though he is still most likely in fourth place at the time being.

Should Paul not win the nomination, he may as well run as a libertarian candidate just as he did back in 1988. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'extra-party' therefore i am presuming you want to create another party (kind of like TR did when he came in second around the beginning of the 20th century). Creating a 'new' party would not do anything for this nation because the 2 parties we have, have polarized each other so much, people are more likely to make a 'lesser of two evils' vote than vote for a party that is new. Especially in this day in age.

If there does happen to be a McCain-Hillary race, that would leave the door open to a third party candidate to do well. However, that party cannot be formed out of 'mid-air'.

I'm wondering if you heard about the rumor McCain is not a natural born citizen? There is a rumor he was born on a ship in leased territory owned by panama thereby not making him a viable candidate for the presidency.
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Pro

OK, extra-party means running as a candidate not affiliated with the two major parties.

Bloomberg could still run. Many candidates said they were not interested in running just a short time before declaring thier candidacy. No doubt Bloomberg would wait until the two major tickets are set to declare as a third party candidate.

Next, Paul currently holds 12 delegates. Compare that with Huckabee and Romney at roughly 200 and McCain at nearly 500. Even in a brokered convention, it would be hard to argue for a Paul nomination.

Reagrdless, whether or not they will run is irrelevant to the debate. I argue that they should run as extra-party candidates. Paul did in 88 as you pointed out. Creating another party wouldn't necessarily be necessary, though it is possible. I don't see how a party couldn't form under someone like Bloomberg. You admit that a third party would do well, so I don't see a problem.

People should not have to be faced with a 'lesser of two evils' type of decision. This is exactly why we should have more than two viable candidates for president in November. Paul and Bloomberg are most likely to be those, so I mnetioned their specific candidacies.
sccrplyr40

Con

Ok, so you say that Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate. Which party? He couldn't and wouldn't be able to conjure up a party out of nowhere.

Paul has more than 12 delegates and that is not because of super tuesday. The media presents the delegate count as proportional to the straw poll results which mean nothing. Paul's strategy is to get his supporters to become delegates. I wont old Super Tuesday against you, and I also wont hold Romney dropping out as another thing against you. However, Staying as a candidate in the GOP contest, is a plus for Paul because he gains more of a conservative base while remaining popular with the independents and democrats.

Sure he may have to run as an independent but at the moment, he is better off running in the GOP race to gain popularity and support, along with being able to participate in a nationally viewed debate amongst McCain and Huckabee.

I agree with you that we need a third party, but I disagree that those candidates should be Paul or Bloomberg and that they should run as third-party candidates.

I hope that Paul would run as a third-party in November should he not win the GOP nomination, however now is not the right time to do that.
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Pro

Ok, so you don't answer the argument at all.

Romney dropping out means the convention won't be brokered, most likely. This means what little chance Paul had is now gone.

I meant this to be a debate about extra-party candidates conceptually. But, Paul and Bloomberg should run as they are the most likely extra-party candidates. You agree that Paul should run. There are countless parties that could support Bloomberg. Just because the media ignores them doesn't mean there aren't any. Also, he could run as an independent.

So, since the debate has been about November since rd 1, I don't see how you have answered ANY of my points.

I agree Paul should stay in the GOP race and get his message out there. But, when he doesn't get the nod, he should run as a extra-party candidate in November.

Paul and Bloomberg are just two examples. I believe that we should make available as many choices as possible to voters, especially in such a critical election with the non-representative candidates (hillary-mccain) that are likely to run.
sccrplyr40

Con

In case you haven't heard, Paul announced today that he would NOT run as a third party candidate because he would focus on his re-election campaign in Texas.

They may be the most likely candidates for a third party run, and I COMPLETELY AGREE with you that they SHOULD run because "[We] believe that we should make available as many choices as possible to voters, especially in such a critical election with the non-representative candidates (hillary-mccain) that are likely to run," however, Paul has now announced that he WON'T run and I dont see how Bloomberg could just jump into the race when he hasn't been parts of debates, hasn't gotten his side of the issues out there, and doesn't have the support to run because by the time he jumps in, people will have made up their minds on who they are voting for.

I agree that a 3rd party should be implemented into our government system, but I don't think the american people have what it takes to vote for someone in a third party. A lot of people feel like they would be wasting their vote.

I know there are TONS of parties for Bloomberg to join as well, the only problem is, is that those parties don't have complete ballot access in all states. I think it is a good idea you propose, and I support it, but it just won't happen.
Debate Round No. 3
wingnut2280

Pro

So you agree with my principle argument that we should have extra-party candidates. The only thing left to address is your cynical view of the American voter.

Paul and Bloomberg could run. There is plenty of time until November and there will be several debates between the candidates in those months. Just because there has been a large frenzy over the nomination doesn't mean that an extra-party candidate wouldn't have time to be heard.

"I don't think the american people have what it takes to vote for someone in a third party. A lot of people feel like they would be wasting their vote."

This is a recent problem. Perot got a good chunk of the vote just a few years ago. The reason a third party hasn't been prominent is because Nader hasn't campaigned much and has a reputation for being the perpetual vote trash can. If there is a third-party candidate in contention, people will vote for them. Just because there hasn't been one in the past two elections, doesn't mean its impossible.

Whether Paul and Bloomberg will run hasn't been my argument. This is simply a debate about whether or not there should be extra-party candidates. You clearly agree with me here, so I don't see the ambiguity.
sccrplyr40

Con

I would like to start off by restating the main debate issue: "Ron Paul and Mike Bloomberg and anyone else for that matter, should run as extra-party candidates for president."

This is what the debate is about. I think we have both agreed upon the fact that there should be a third party incorporated into the United States political system. The part we disagree upon is that the third party candidate would actually have a legitimate chance at winning.

You say that Perot got a 'good chunk' of the vote a few years ago, which in fact he did. Yet he still came in 3rd place far behind the other two candidates. The last time that a third party actually came in second was when TR ran for the Bull Moose party. He came in second. But that's beside the point, the fact is, he lost. A third party candidate would have barely any chance at winning this election or even coming close to winning.

I figure that about 30% of the population in the USA, is straight republican, and 30% of the population is straight democrat. That leaves 40% left over of people who decide on issues and are independents. Sure that leaves it open for those 40% to vote in a third party, but that's considering every voter votes for them.

You clearly agree with my stance that people would feel like they are 'wasting their vote' and so I don't see how your argument can withstand your position.

"[People would feel like they are wasting their vote] is a recent problem"

I wouldn't have ANY problem voting for a third party candidate (especially if this November ballot turns out to be Hillary-McCain) but I can't see the stubborn [a lot (not all) of people are whether they agree or not] American people voting for a candidate not associated with a major party.

As for Bloomberg entering the race, we will find out soon enough if he is in it or not. This isn't about him though, and therefore I will leave it at that.

This debate has turned out to be whether a candidate from a third party could enter the race and be in contention for the presidency. That clearly wouldn't happen even though I would applaud the American people for making that happen (should that be the outcome). Having said all of my argument in this round and others, I would like to thank all of you voters who took the time to read this debate thoroughly and vote for the winner of the debate instead of your personal opinion. Thank you and it is greatly appreciated!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AntiPatriot 9 years ago
AntiPatriot
Paul has stated numerous times that he WON'T run as a third party candidate. I think he should, but he has specifically said in his blogs and bulletins that he won't. Hopefully he changes his mind. Or... hopefully America will wake up and smell the cow crap in their living rooms and just vote for him now! Fat chance though... :(
Posted by sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
Haha, I'm glad that we agree on a stance for a third party should it become a McCain-Hillary race...I just re read your first agrument...nice debating you
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
wingnut2280sccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by redinbluestate 9 years ago
redinbluestate
wingnut2280sccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by malmal16 9 years ago
malmal16
wingnut2280sccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
wingnut2280sccrplyr40Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03