Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul seems to me to be the most reasonable (and by many measures the most respectable) republican presidential candidate of 2012. He is honest in his debates. He doesn't make comments which are only motivated by the attempt to attract voters or appeal to his audience. He is realistic in his statements and is most serious about the issues at hand. He is very consistent with his views. He is reluctant to attack other candidates and he doesn't get his applause by relentlessly bashing Obama.
I thank my opponent for starting this debate.
In order to debate the resolution "Ron Paul is the most reasonble republican presidential canadate" we first need to establish what 'reasonable' is and what it is in context of Paul as a 'presidential canadate'.
obviously because we are talking about the Republican Primary election, what would make a contender in that race the most 'reasonable' to pick is there ability to win the General election defeating incumbant president Barack Obama.
Given our understanding of this ultimate fact that republicans should be considering going into caucuses next year to vote, the 'most reasonable' options to pick would not be Ron Paul.
Even Rush Limbaugh on his talk radio show admitted that you do not want to pick the strongly conserviative that you as a republican would like the best but should rather just start out supporting the modorate canadate to sweep in the votes from not just your own side of the isle, but the conservative democrates as well.
That best choice of a canadate could only be considered someone like Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman. I could go into details on how they are modorate if my oppoenent wishes but its a generally undisputed fact that they are except by Romeny himself these days so I will press on.
Besides the issue of being able to gain conservite leaning democrates away from obama in order to defeate him, there is also the issue of resorces to campaign against the President. We all remember how well the president was at campaigning last election when he became presdient. My state Virgina has been considered a Red state for all my life until that election. after Obama won it they are now calling us a purple state that could swing either way. Obama is such a good campainer that he took Virgina. that say's a lot. the vote was not a close call between him and John Mcain last election so whoever is going to be taking him on this time is got to have serious skills and resorces to take on the president.
one of those resorces to consider is money. here are some stats on both Paul and Romey http://www.opensecrets.org...; http://www.opensecrets.org...
as you can see Mitt Romey has spent more money that Ron Paul has raised total througout his campain and he has more on hand that Paul has raised total. This is a huge edge that Romeny will have on Obama that Ron Paul will not. Paul only has 3 million on hand to start throwing at running againt obama in the general election while Romney will have 14 million on hand left.
Huntsman has not raised near as much as Paul to Ron Pauls credit http://www.opensecrets.org... but that does not make much a difference in hunstams case because he has access to and infinite amount of cash called 'calling dad' http://www.nytimes.com... His billionair father is helping him campain so you cant really say huntsman is short on resorces.
another factor to consider is that Romney, while an excellent debater, is also a succesfull busnessman. and busness experince is going to be the needed stats to campaign against Obama with such a focus on his failure with the economy this election and turning to supporting Job creators. Romeny has created many jobs in his careree on a very large level with several different industries, Staple the most often cited example of is success.
In a nation thats plauged by a problem of a debt crisis of several trillion dollors, unable to create a budgets with surpluses to pay that debt off, you need someone with a history of knowing how to cut cost. and no one is a greater master at cutting cost and removing ineffeciencies than Mitt Romeny http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com...
So in short...
1) Romney will out debate Obama in the General Election...
2) Romeny can beat Obama dollor for dollar in the GE...
3) Romenys record as a busnessman is going to outshine Obamas as President in terms of Job creation and fiscal budgeting smarts
4) Romeny will be able to pull in modorate votes
5) Romeny will not look weaker than Obama Mcain did as a shorter and much older man last election
6) None of those things hold true for Ron Paul.
Forgive me for not more clearly defining the debate. I have not debated in a while. Therefore, I will leave allow either side to interpret the resolution as they please and simply give a case.
I originally intended 'reasonable' to refer to Ron Paul's views, and that they are the most sensible of the lot. Since I failed to do this, I will debate in both your terms and mine. From an ideological standpoint, I find Ron Paul superb in what he says. He covers a range of economic, militaristic, and social issues.
He, like the other republican candidates, has a strong belief in the free market economy and privatization. This comes with the belief of refraining from taxes as much as possible. However, not only will he make that effort; he has a plan to do what the other candidates haven't really mentioned: cutting spending. He claims to have a plan that will cut over 1 trillion dollars of spending in just the first year. Programs that obviously don't work he will pull funding from. Things like aid to foreign countries, or our presence and funding in the United Nations would be severely cut, as he notes that these things could be doing just as much harm to U.S. interests as they do good.
He is also against the federal reserve (thank goodness). That says a lot.
To me, this is where Ron Paul shines. His views of foreign policy is that of a non-interventionist. He takes note that a large amount of our deficit is due this outrageous military spending we're doing funding these wars we keep waging. Unlike the other republicans that debate up there, he is not a hawk. He is strongly against waging wars and he is honest enough to mention that the reason we have so many enemies is not because they envy us or inherently hate us for our wealth and ideas. We make these enemies by dropping bombs on people and supporting oppressive tyrants when it suits our interests to do so. Everyone keeps mentioning Syria and Iran, and how both of these countries pose a threat to the United States if they acquire nuclear weapons. He makes the case for how it will still be a while for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and even if they do, they shouldn't be able to bomb us without us knowing/stopping them. The point he was trying to make was that we shouldn't wage another aggressive war. War is very expensive, and to support another war we would have to spend billions of dollars we did not have as well as countless lives. His point is clear: when it comes to international law we need to mind our own business.
Instead of going overseas and fighting, he says we should instead focus on securing our borders and tightening our national defense. It is known that Al-Qaeda is building connections in South American countries that aren't on good terms with the United States such as Venezuela. What would be the point in waging these offensive wars when we have a terrible defensive border that would allow easy access into our country.
Like Thomas Jefferson, he is a believer in a strict interpretation of the constitution. He believes that governments shouldn't be able to overstep their powers as that would threaten the liberty of the citizens. He says that the executive branch should have minimal power, and on top of that the federal government should have minimal power. He believes that states should have their own say on gun laws, drug laws, sex laws, and marriage laws. He takes notes that our jails and prisons are filled with a ridiculous amount of people prosecuted for petty crimes such as prostitution, weapon carrying, and illegal drug use. In order to maintain these prisons/prisoners, tax payer dollars have to be wasted.
All of the republican candidates are Christians. However, all of them, except Ron Paul, are saying that they will try to push their morals and ideas into the law books, and it often gets them an applause. Ron Paul, though a Christian, still doesn't try to push the morals of his faith into the law. For that, I respect him. Church and state should be separate.
He is very careful with his wording on the War on Terror. He knows better than to point the finger at "Muslims", as he recognizes the wrong kind of wording can be offensive and dangerous. He also doesn't try to paint this false pretty picture that America is the completely innocent, blameless victim for the kinds of problems it has.
He also was against the Patriot Act, which in my book gives him loads of respect.
Furthermore, he believes that everyone, foreign or not, should go through due process and the court of law. He understands the dangerous thinking of other candidates who think that anyone labeled as a terrorist should not be given any rights under our constitution and could be susceptible to execution as seen fit. Mr. Paul explains how this could endanger American citizens.
I would like you to explain how other candidates have views anywhere near as good as Ron Paul's.
You seem to be arguing that Ron Paul's nomination as the republican party candidate wouldn't be as strategic as would be the nomination of the other candidates mention. You say this is because he would lack the financial resources to be able to effectively campaign against Barack Obama. However, if he wins the primary, he will have the support of the republican party backing him. I wouldn't doubt they would lend him a dime or two. You also forget that they will hold many debates during fall of next year, which will be another method by which he can gain ground and support.
Though Romney might have an economic edge, there is still a social and militaristic aspect you need to account for.
Ability to Beat Obama:
From reading Pro’s response it seems he took just one thing out of my entire first round and that was ‘Mitt Romney has more money than Ron Paul’. I am willing to concede that Paul will have the resources of the GOP caucus behind him if he wins, I had other electability points that were just as important, So I will restate and restress them now.
1) Debate skills: As I said Mitt Romney has proven himself to be an excellent debater, even people who are determined to not like him cant help but give him credit in this respect. And since the last time he ran he has even shown himself to have grown to tactfully not pander to an audience all the time, but tell them the opposite of what they want to hear if its not consistent with his own plans. For example in Iowa where they make tons of corn the people wanted to hear about ethanol subsidies being given to them and he wasn’t going to promise it to them.
Ron Paul on the other hand is probably the second worst debater of the remaining candidates. I say this with all do respect to his positions he argues, this is not a statement about those positions but his presentation of them. He frequently goes over his time limits and just has a tendency to ramble on. If he is going to take on Obama the master of working the crowds he’s got to learn to articulate his arguments better and make his points more concise. But of course they say old dogs cant learn new tricks so no point waiting on that to happen…
2) Resume in the business world: More and more people in this falling economy at the news of people like Donald Trump running are saying things like ‘maybe we need a businessman to save this country.’ And Obama’s failure in providing jobs and growing the economy are going to be key to campaigning against him 2012. Ron Paul was a doctor before he was a senator. That really doesn’t have anything to do with anything campaign related so it can’t help or harm either side. Romney on the other hand was a incredibly successful businessman, later a actual executive branch position, Governor of Massachusetts. Both of those credentials characterize the ingredients to beating Obama. If tort reform for medical malpractice was the key than Ron Paul would be our man but its not so Romney is our man for the job.
3) Getting Moderates: Moderate democrats will be willing to vote for Romney cause he is on the more moderate side of republicans. They will never vote for Ron Paul he is on the most extreme far right of republicans.
4) Looking the Part: one hates to say this factor could contribute to a position as important as the president but shamefully it does in our country. In one of the first public debates between presidential candidates Kennedy and Nixon, the people who could only listen to the radio broadcast of it felt Nixon won while those who watched the sweating older man with hints of 5’oclock shadow debate the younger dolled up man thought Kennedy won. Kennedy was elected president that election cycle. Image matters. Mitt Romney looks like the president found in a movie, if he were an action figure he would be Barbie’s president friend Mitt. Ron Paul is a short wrinkled older man. We should have learned this last election, if you put an old guy against Obama, your going to lose.
A) The Economy: my opponents says he likes Ron Pauls economic positions witch include spend less and cut tax’s like all the other republicans. But how can Pro truly trust anything Ron Paul say’s on his Economy positions, for though Ron Paul may say lots of nice sounding things what he does is what matters. He say’s he’s against earmarks and yet he has pushed for 65 of them this year to get over 400 million of my taxpayers dollars for his local area that is far away from Virginia. http://www.conservativesnetwork.com...
Romney on the other hand knows to save the economy its going to take more the ‘liberty and freedom’ fluff that Ron Paul spews out all the time and it will take more than a simple ‘999’ talking point plan too. So in his economic position he has set out a solid thorough 59 point plan for turning around the economy, and best of all anyone who reads this plan can see its pragmatic. Ron Paul is just going to give us the same talking points we have been getting from the people that deadlock Washington from ever doing anything all the time and don’t know what the term compromise is. Romney in his experience in having to deal with a democrate state legislature knows to give in on the ‘rich people tax’ if he wants to permanently get rid of the messed up ‘dead people tax’ http://www.debate.org...
B) The Millitary: Ron Paul loses all ground to be made commander in chief when it comes treatment of Iran. He wants to just treat them as if they were just like us and will act the same way just like we would to certain actions. he states to not get worried over them getting nukes, 'after all we made it throught he cold war with everyone having nukes pointed at each other'. the technical term for what he's talking about is 'Mutually assured destruction' as what will keep Iran with nukelur wepons from destroying anyone with them. But I think Rick Santorum totally rebutted Paul best when he brought up how Iran is different from other nations in this respect. He brought up how its right in there constitution that they are not founded 'freedom' 'hope' or 'liberty' but on 'martydom'. Mutual Assured destruction will not cause them to not use there nukes. There leader has said he will wipe Isreal off the face of the earth if they get them. Ron Paul would just have us let them do that to, destroy our only real ally over there and not step in.
any of the other canadites are more reasonble than Paul in this respect as they all have stated they understand we need to do all we can to keep that country from getting nukes.
C) The Social: To rebutt all the nonsense Pro gave for this section I ask one thing for my opponent to answer. Should Lincoln had kept his religous views to himself and let the states determine for themselves if they will have slaves or not, or was right to 'impose' his 'moral values' on the nation to end all slavery? after all if its wrong in one place, just cause you cross state border dosnt make it right all of a sudden, slavery is wrong everywhere.
As a future President:
this is a slighty new ground for arguing what makes him 'reasonble' or not. Rather than making a case about just what we think of the things he say's he's for, or how electable he is, there is also a pragmatic view of what to expect if he were president.
In this respect all the other canadites are more 'reasonable'. In all of Ron Pauls years as a Senetor he has never gotten anything of signigicace passed through Congress. He has tried and failed a few times to restart the Gold standard. but he has never been able to get that passed because he is not a leader and he alinates everyone in congress including his party. He's not going to overcome the gridlock when he's in the white house.
Many of the others some good things can be said for concerning this, Santorum has a history of getting things passed through working with both sides, as does Romeny as a Govener
I look foward to my opponents response waiting to see how he makes use of his character space to rebutt all of that. I warn you Pro, I gave you 8 things to respond to meaning just 1000 characters per thing. giving more of a case to one thing means shorting it on another.. Its not easy but I have so far enjoyed the challenge of fitting both a case on your terms and my terms as you phrased it into one round.
diety forfeited this round.
my opponent has forfietted, making me DA WINNER MON!!! :) :) :)
vote for Con!
('DA WINNER MON' is a trademark of applejacks-jamcian-sterotyping incorporate advertising company and they approve this debate)
diety forfeited this round.
Interesting to note, while Ron Paul is not the most reasonable cannadite for people to pick he's definitly going to win in Virginia and its lookin more like he will really take Iowa this year, so he has had a greater chance at getting nominated than ever before so we might just have to deal with him being our canadite this year.
and then we will have to deal with Obama winning again because of it.