The Instigator
BrandonSiler2044
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
waylon.fairbanks
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Ron Paul for president

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
waylon.fairbanks
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,073 times Debate No: 18877
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

BrandonSiler2044

Pro

I am for Ron Paul being elected.
waylon.fairbanks

Con

Accepted. I am not for Ron Paul being elected US president in 2012.
Debate Round No. 1
BrandonSiler2044

Pro

Thank you.

Ron Paul is a Christian candidate who has served in the air force, he is a doctor, and has been reelected to congress around 10 times. He would change our foreign policy. Audit the fed. He predicted the housing bubble. Has never flip flopped on any issue in the last 25 years. Wants limited government, abides his policies by the constitution and would protect peoples rights as citizens of the United States of America. Has a budget plan that would cut 1 trillion dollar spending and would give us a balanced budget by the 3rd year. Cares about liberty for US citizens. Would increase our national defense. And keeps his personal believes away from his believes of the governments role.

I rest my case
waylon.fairbanks

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. I urge the voters to not vote based upon whether they think Ron Paul should be president, but who argued their case better.

Ron Paul is too Ideological

It is well known that Ron Paul is a committed Libertarian. And as a committed Libertarian, his commentary as a legislator and political figure adds to the political dialogue. However, ideologues tend to be better at founding countries than governing them.

Since Ron Paul is so committed to an ideological stance, he would be unable to work with the Congress, and thus be an ineffectual leader. Presidents who tend to succeed are usually realistic and pragmatic, and not particularly adherent to parties or ideologies. When commenting on issues, Paul often begins "if we didn't have the FED", "if we didn't have an empire", thus stating a discontentedness for the current governmental structure of the US. Unfortunately for Paul, it is not the duty of the president to revolutionize the government, and denounce laws passed by congress.

I admit, I do find Paul's ideas and books to be very interesting and thought provoking. The USA needs people like Paul on the floor of the House debating policy. But, the better presidents in US history, like Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Clinton were successful because their lack of ideological adherence, and thus allowed them to "work across the aisle" and take independent approaches to governance. FDR and Reagan (in my analysis) are really the only two great ideological presidents, and this was due to FDR's Democratic majorities in Congress during his first term, and Reagan's ability to compromise on principle. If Reagan were as stubborn as Paul, his presidency would have been a failure. On the other hand, the US has had countless presidents that, although intellectual, were ineffectual due to ideological adherence, such as Adams, Jefferson, Wilson, Carter, Bush.

In my opinion, Paul would have a presidency much like Jefferson. Both are supremely intelligent, but like Jefferson, Paul would find difficulty turning his philosophical musings on the nature of government into policy that is palatable to two political parties. Paul would probably become reclusive and irrelevant once he realizes that corrupt Democrats and Republicans like "Big Government" and rely on pet projects to get reelected. Paul would be incapable of compromise (which he has shown throughout his political career) and very little of his platform would become effective law.

Most Americans Do Not Support Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not a charismatic leader. He has good name recognition and the majority of the voting public knows who he is. Yet in spite of 3 presidential bids, over a dozen debates, and countless television appearances, only 10% of primary voters in Paul's own party support him. Being unpopular in the Republican party, and a joke in the Democratic party, even if every registered independent in the USA voted for Paul, he would still handedly lose. Americans have heard Paul's ideology, and many may even find him charming and good natured, the US has not taken to his ideology and there is little evidence that this will change. Paul seems more popular than he actually his because of the overwhelming activism of his small supporter base.

Initial support is extremely important because a surplus of political capital determines what a president can initially enact. For example, the momentum Obama had after his election allowed him to pass his signature policy, the Affordable Healthcare Act. Whether you agree with the law or not, it is easy to see the connection between the Obama movement and his ability to pass health care reform. Political capital is extremely important to a president's success, and Paul's exclusive, instead of inclusive, ideological nature, would alienate the majority of citizens, and he would have very little capital to be effective.

Rebuttals and Notes

For now, these two arguments are sufficient to explain why Paul should not be president. I will no rebut Pro's arguments.

-All current candidates for president are Christians so this does not strengthen his presidential bid
-I agree, military experience and being a doctor are good qualifications
-Being reelected 10 times to Congress only proves he is a career politician, which has not served America well recently
- Every candidate wants to "change" our foreign policy. Change means nothing
-While consistency is good, is not changing one's mind in 25 years really so great? A good leader often matures intellectually and changes views, or at least changes positions based on new developments. It shows a lack of stubborness to change a position, as Obama has on Gay marriage. It is brave to admit that somebody can be wrong. I am not so sure that never changing one's mind is really a good thing.
-Every candidate wants limited government, and all say their policies are the most "constitutional"
-Congress would not pass Paul's budget in 1 million years, regardless how "good" it is
-He actually wants to decrease defense spending


Final Thoughts

Many Ron Paul supporters are naive to political reality. Ironically, their savior libertarian candidate, who would "protect" them from government, would only be effective as a dictator. When people talk about a Ron Paul presidency, and how he'd end the Federal Reserve, end the wars, cut "useless" government spending, and reform entitlements, they forgot that under their sacred constitution, this is not the job of the president, and not even possible from the president. He can only propose legislation, and veto legislation. In all of US House history, Paul is 2nd all time in solitary nay votes, with 33 [1].

This demonstrates that Paul is too ideologically pure to compromise and work with Congress, and in effect would actually reform government less than more moderate candidates. Ron Paul for Revolutionary? Yes. Ron Paul for dictator? Sure. Ron Paul for president? No way.




[1] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
BrandonSiler2044

Pro

One of your arguments is that he is too ideaological.

Ideological means "realating to, or concerned with ideas"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Since when is it a bad thing to have ideas?

Id rather elect someone with ideas then someone without ideas.

You also said most americans do not support Ron Paul.

Then tell me why has won 2 official straw polls essentially tied for another straw poll, and wins literally every debate poll.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...

http://srnnews.townhall.com...

http://articles.cnn.com...

The people love him, the media doesn't because the media is filled with lies and propaganda and Ron Paul would show everyone the truth.

One of your last arguments was that every politician would change our foreign policy. Change means nothing.

Did you know that Osama Ben Laden sent letters to the U.S. on why 9/11 happened? He attacked us because we had foreign military bases on his holy land. He said he would keep attacking until we change our foreign policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Many people believe that they attacked us because we were free. People also believe that just because we're American, it makes it right to have 930 foreign bases in the world in 150 different countries and to continue to bomb people.
waylon.fairbanks

Con

Notes on Pro's Arguments:

Pro's dictionary definition of ideological does not really apply to the usage of "ideological" in politics. I said Paul was too ideological to be president. Of course, having ideas is important, but Pro presents a false dichotomy between "having ideas and not having ideas". I reject this. As I stated previously, history shows that one of the most important traits in a president is adaptability. International situations are very complex, and being restricted to a static political ideology is not helpful is solving crises.

Again, the Constitution delegates few powers to the president, and the president must work with Congress. Paul votes against more Congressional bills than any other member, and therefore would probably veto most bills as president. This fundamentalist libertarianism would allow the government to adapt very little to our current problems.

The two links Pro cited do not represent the American people. One is California Republicans, one is a Values Voters convention, and the third is the Iowa Straw Poll. I have three points:

1. There are only about 50 million registered Republicans in the USA and 38% of Americans identify as Republicans [1]. Therefore, polls only from Republicans do not offer an accurate picture of the American voter. In fact, the same citation as above shows that more Americans identify as Democrats, and it is common knowledge that there are about 70 million registered Democrats. I doubt Democrats are willing to elect a libertarian.

2. Straw polls are extremely inaccurate ways of measuring popular support. Unlike official polls, which sample a random group representative of the voting public, candidates actually bribe their supporters to attend these pathetic straw polls, in order to look popular. In the cited Iowa straw poll for example, candidates actually bribed voters into turning out by offering them food and live music [2]. Pretty ridiculous actually.

3. Read to the end of the article Pro cited. Last sentence: "Only one Republican has won the straw poll and gone on to occupy the Oval Office: George W. Bush." Straw polls are extremely bad indicators of actually winning the nomination [3].

Pro says "the people" love Ron Paul. What people? All the people? Some people love Paul, just like some love Romney, Cain, or Obama. In actuality, only 8% of Republicans support Paul according to the latest Gallup Poll [4]. The same poll indicates that Paul has the most "unfavorable" and "highly unfavorable" ratings of any Republican candidate, with 36% of Republicans polled stating so. Huntsman is second with 34%.

As for Pro's analysis of Paul's foreign policy, I do agree. I also find it stupid when Americans state that we were attacked because we are "free". Many freedom indexes show that the United States is not even the most free country in the world. We were, in my opinion (and also Paul's), attacked because we have military in 150 of the world's approximately 190 countries. Bin Laden explicitly stated that it was military bases in Saudi Arabia that caused 9/11.

But what is Pro's point? The fact is, both the Democratic and Republican parties would never support the downsizing of our global empire, and the president is not authorized to withdraw troops from these bases without congressional approval. So even though I agree with Paul's sentiment, as president, he would have even less power than he has now as a Representative.

And the video Pro posted of Paul "predicting 9/11" is ridiculous. He simply stated that there would be retaliation from the Middle East for US foreign policy, but that is hardly equal to predicting a 3,000 casualty attack on US soil. Even if he explicitly predicted 9/11, this does not qualify him for president.





[1] http://www.gallup.com...
[2] http://articles.latimes.com...
[3]http://articles.cnn.com...
[4] http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 3
BrandonSiler2044

Pro

You operate under the assumption that vetoing bills is a bad thing. I would be very happy if he vetoed tons of bills because government is getting way to large. He would veto the federal reserve bill, repeal Obamacare, repeal the patriot act, repeal Roe Vs. Wade, etc.

I find it funny how you diss my straw polls of real people because they are "innaccurate," but then go on to tell me that because the gallup poll says one thing, thats what all Americans thinks. You cant pick and choose the polls you like or don't like. All polls are polls. All i'm saying is that he does have support, people have voted for him in straw polls.

I give you props for agreeing with Ron Paul on foreign policy. Thank you.

Your final argument on "what is Pro's point" would not apply to just Ron Paul but to any candidate. It would apply to ANYONE in office. Dont you want to vote for someone who you support? Thats why we vote! Because we like their ideas! And it sounds like you like his ideas but you dont want to vote for him because none of his ideas would pass through congress. Whats your argument? That we shouldn't elect presidents because they can't do anything? Please. Why elect a president if they can't do anything?

The debate was on why Ron Paul shouldn't be president. Your argument isn't against that, your argument is a dfferent topic that talks about how his ideas wouldn't pass through congress. If you would like, we could start another debate. But please stay on topic.
waylon.fairbanks

Con

Firstly, I think my opponent for setting up this debate, not forfeiting, and responding in every round quickly. Now to the issues:

Pro simply is neglecting to acknowledge how our government works. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, so unless Mr. Paul has a time machine, he cannot go back in time and veto it. Only Congress could repeal "Obamacare", the president would be violating the constitution if he repealed a congressional act. And Roe v. Wade? That is a supreme court case. The president cannot overrule a court case. Pro has consistently proposed things Paul would "do" as president, but has not been able to explain the actual process in which this would happen. The president is essentially powerless. Pro's blind hope reminds me much of Obama supporters in 2008...

With regards to the polls, Pro is simply wrong. "All polls are polls" is an inaccurate and untrue statement. The Gallup poll scientifically polls random participants so they accurately reflect the electorate. Straw Polls are only based on a group that has already showed up at an event. Moreover, they are bribed with beer and hot dogs, which is not exactly scientific data of who is going to vote. Only 16,000 people voted in the Ames Straw Poll. And only 4,000 for Paul. If pro seriously thinks that people attending a $30 dollar even in Ames, Iowa who must be registered Republicans is representative of the country, well, I rest my case.

Yes, I agree with the rationale behind Paul's foreign policy, but in practice it would be impossible to enact without a Congress full of like minded representatives and senator... aka, not happening.

To address Pro's last argument on how my arguments are, I will say this: us Americans life under a government and Constitution of checks and balances, and separated powers. This debate is about whether or not Ron Paul would be a good president. It is not about if Ron Paul has good ideas, it is about if he would be a good (aka effective) president. Since Pro has started this silliness, I will settle it. The difference between Pro and my arguments is that I take into account THE REALITIES of how government works, and Pro does not.

So in reality, my arguments actually pertain to this topic better than Pro's. The gist of my argument is this: Ron Paul may have good ideas about politics, but the reality of the political process would not allow him to enact these policies.
Pro, you must realize, the president is not supreme dictator. He cannot just do whatever he wants. Ron Paul cannot just decide to close foreign bases, end the FED, cut entitlements, and end the wars. He can only sign into law Congress's bills that do this. Since Congress would not pass these bills, Ron Paul would be useless.

Modern American politics have misconstrued the purpose of the president. All of these debates and political shows mis-inform people like Pro into thinking that presidents decide the policies of the country. And since they don't (read the Constitution), other characteristics need to be considered when choosing a president, such as adaptability, charisma, negotiating skills, diplomatic nuance, and ability to compromise.

Taking these traits into account, Ron Paul should not be president. He should stay in congress, making laws. As soon as Paul got into office, and realized that in order to pass any legislation, he would have to convince (and thus compromise) the 200 Democrats in Congress into agreeing with him, Paul would be screwed. People like Ron Paul because he is honest, straightforward, and committed to his beliefs. But ironically, this commitment would weaken his ability to lead effectively. It may be sad, but it is the truth of American politics.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
anarcho-capitalist: yeah, yeah, yeah...
Posted by anarcho-capitalist 5 years ago
anarcho-capitalist
"Many Ron Paul supporters are naive to political reality." and "I take into account THE REALITIES of how government works, and Pro does not." Ad hominem/poisoning the well:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Paul doesn't want to decrease defense spending. He wants to decrease misguided offensive spending.

Concerning Paul's consistency:

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

How Ron Paul could win: http://youtu.be...

As far as Ron Paul only having 10%, have you seen the latest research on how ideas spread and triumph? http://news.rpi.edu...
Posted by anarcho-capitalist 5 years ago
anarcho-capitalist
I can't vote because I haven't done any debates yet.

As far as Ron Paul not being able to get anything done as President, actually he could get plenty done without the need for him to repeal any unconstitutional laws at all. All he would have to do is pardon anyone convicted under those laws. Someone is selling raw milk and got caught? Pardoned. Someone leaks documents that expose government wrongdoing? Pardoned. Someone was caught producing sound money backed by gold or silver that competes with the Federal Reserve's monopoly? Pardoned. People are being imprisoned indefinitely? Tell the prosecutors to charge them and start trials or they will be pardoned immediately.

As far as Ron Paul being able to beat Obama, Con likes Gallup polls so he should be aware that in a hypothetical matchup a Gallup poll found that "Mitt Romney leads Obama by two percentage points, 48% to 46%, Rick Perry and Obama are tied at 47%, and Obama edges out Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann by two and four points, respectively." Two points. Big deal. That's within the +-4 point margin of error for goodness sake.

The only reason he isn't a thousand times as popular is because the media is biased against him, as John Stewart proves:

http://youtu.be...

And this study confirms:

http://www.infowars.com...

Despite being in third in polls, "Ron Paul has received just 18 minutes and 47 seconds of time, less than any other candidate, and less than half the time that Mitt Romney has been allowed."
Posted by BrandonSiler2044 5 years ago
BrandonSiler2044
Then vote on my debate!!
Posted by anarcho-capitalist 5 years ago
anarcho-capitalist
The whole thing about Ron Paul not being able to lead is absurd. After fighting for years to audit and end the Fed, he has gotten a bill passed which has audited it. And he just is a lonely House member. Now everyone is finally talking about the Fed. Even Newt Gingrich was hammering the institution in the last Republican debate. As Fox News analyst Juan Williams put it, we're in the age of Ron Paul: http://youtu.be...
Posted by BrandonSiler2044 5 years ago
BrandonSiler2044
No support? He JUST won the straw poll with 53%...
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
When Obama was elected in 2008, he won 53% of the vote, 28 states, and had about a 70% approval rating.

About 5-10% of the country support Paul.

Define "a lot"
Posted by BrandonSiler2044 5 years ago
BrandonSiler2044
But thats the thing, he does have a lot of support..
Posted by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
If it's for that reason, then it's fine, I guess.
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
I disagree Darris. My point is not that he couldn't get elected, my point is that the lack of American approval of his ideology, he would have no political capital for his agenda.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
BrandonSiler2044waylon.fairbanksTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was right: "Pro is simply wrong."
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
BrandonSiler2044waylon.fairbanksTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Anyone who is being honest and actually read the debate knows that Con obviously won the debate here. I don't know what a couple other voters were doing but they need to leave their personal opinions out of it. Pro had zero substance, it seemed like he was just laying out some opinions for why he would vote for Ron Paul. Con gave a lot of hard hitting facts and solid rebuttals, not to mention how much more effort was apparently put into the arguments than Pro. Case closed.
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
BrandonSiler2044waylon.fairbanksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a good case while Pro did not seem to understand some of Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
BrandonSiler2044waylon.fairbanksTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have easily argued how Ron Paul wanted to end social security, medicare, medicaid, or comment on any of his disasterous ideas. Instead the con got in a long debate over why being ideologically stable is a bad thing. arguments go to pro even though Ron Paul is in my opinion a poor candidate
Vote Placed by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
BrandonSiler2044waylon.fairbanksTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a overall better argument, but it was pretty even.