The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
clsmooth
Con (against)
Losing
54 Points

Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92

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: 12/24/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,201 times Debate No: 928
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (30)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

I just read today that Mr Paul is NOT ruling out running as a thrid party candidate

Hot off the presses

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

When Tim Russert of NBC's 'Meet the Press' asked the Texas congressman if he'd consider an independent bid, he replied: "I have no intention of doing that."

When pressed by Russert to state unequivocally that he would not, Paul demurred. "I deserve one weasel wiggle now and then, Tim!"

Paul lost to Phil Gramm in the 1984 Texas Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Four years later, he ran for president as the Libertarian Party nominee.

The Republican presidential contender — who has an intensely loyal national following — is pulling in record fundraising sums, prompting speculation that he may continue his White House bid even if he does not fare well among Republican primary voters.

Paul is currently averaging single-digit showings in most recent surveys of GOP voters nationally and in early-voting states.

Now this is obviously in part wishful thinking by the evil Clinton News Network, which shamelessly shills for democraps and demonizes republicans- they hope they can get another Clinton in with 43% by running a 3rd party that will get alot of votes (ie 10% ) - thinking since he running now as an (R) OF COURSE he will siphon more (R) votes

I think that is correct

The question is- will he garner more liberal or conservative votes?

More republican or democrat?

Will he run as a libertarian?

Now , Clsmooth, I know YOU would vote for him no matter what (you even said you would write him in rather than vote for Thompson)

that being said, the damage that results from democrats being in charge is SO enormous, ESPECIALLY the corrupt Clintons, that I think anyone foolish enough to fall for this ploy again has to have their head examined

Clsmooth- want to take this on?
clsmooth

Con

First off, Merry Christmas, solarman and to everyone at Debate.org.

As for the subject of the debate: Will a Ron Paul independent / third-party candidacy "hurt" the Republicans like Ross Perot did in '92? My answer is two-part:

(1) NO, because if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, the party will be irreparably damaged anyway. The problems Reagan created by the "fusion" of fiscal conservatives, militarist war-hawks, and Bible-thumping religious extremists are coming to a head with this election. The coalition lasted nearly thirty years, but like the New Deal coalition that preceded it, its days are over. The political elites have converged in bi-partisan consensus, leaving the majority of Americans feeling as though the two parties are essentially the same. The new winning coalition will be bringing these disaffected voters from across the political spectrum together with the unifying message of freedom. Ron Paul brings people together. The message of freedom is one that can even bring together solarman and Lindsay, if given time.

(2) NO, because very few Ron Paul supporters will support a pro-war, pro-inflation neocon Republican. Even fewer are likely to vote for Hillary, but if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, then a good hunk of Ron Paul supporters will vote for him (if Paul does not run) over Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or especially Huckabee. (This is because a good number of Ron Paul's supporters are not constitutional scholars or Austrian economists -- they are attracted to Ron Paul's authenticity and honesty, and for whatever reason, a great deal of people see that in Obama, too. A fair share of Paul supporters are former Obama people who saw the light). Mostly, Ron Paul's supporters will vote the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates (or another independent) if Ron Paul is not running, or they will just write Ron Paul's name in, which I plan to do (IF he fails to win the GOP nomination and does not run independent). Thus, in an electoral sense, an independent / Libertarian Ron Paul will neither hurt nor help the GOP in 2008 -- the Republicans will be doomed whether he runs or sits out.

It makes virtually zero difference to me who the president is if it's not Ron Paul. The most fundamental political issue of our time is the Federal Reserve and the coming dollar crisis, and every single other candidate -- from Fred Thompson to Dennis Kucinich and everyone in between -- is in unanimity on that issue. I just don't see Hillary as a Great Satan that you do. Why would our country be any better off with another four years of George H.W. Bush than with Bill Clinton? They ran on virtually identical platforms, just as Hillary and every Republican (except Ron Paul) do today. If you voted for Perot, you should be proud of your vote. Even though he was a protectionist and far too liberal, he was worth voting for (just as many good liberals see Ron Paul as worth voting for).

The fact is that we don't really even vote for president -- we vote for presidential electors. And our individual votes, by themselves, are unlikely to be the deciding factor in determining which electors get sent to the College. In 1848, Martin Van Buren (one of our greatest and most underrated presidents) ran as a third-party candidate, on the Free Soil Party ticket. He got over 10% of the vote, despite the fact that everyone who voted for him knew he could not win the election. But these voters could not bring themselves to voting for the pro-slavery Whigs or the pro-slavery Democrats -- they wanted to vote AGAINST slavery and for Free Soil. Similarly, Ron Paul supporters, by and large, will be unable to bring themselves to vote for a candidate who stands for the slavery that is imperialism, police statism, confiscatory taxation, and worst of all, inflationist fiat-money printing. Your vote is your ultimate expression of your First Amendment rights -- selling it out to the lesser of two evils is a rejection of American republican principles.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

First of all I am going to totally defeat your first ridiculous supposition, which from your previous statements seems to be "tongue in cheek"

Democrats and Republicans are VERY different

they are also the major two parties in the US

They could not be more different on

taxes
national security
spending
corruption and influence peddling
morality
life
liberty
and most of the other issues listed on this site

So to say that you would vote for Paul (he is running as an R by the way) regardless is just plain stupid

Libertarianism is radical conservatism.

But our system of government is very stable and will not tolerate radical change, like it or not.

We have gone through about 230 years of changes since 1777 , and have had many changes occur

We had a civil war
We had slavery end
We had the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII
We had prohibition, and then the repeal thereof

And so much more

Along the way, the congress, elected by the people have voted for the federal agencies that exist and the programs they created.

yes there are problems with the system

government spends too much, and so on

You may or may not agree we have responsibility to the world

You may or may not feel we have responsibility to take care of the poor

You may or may not think our economic system is perfect or even good

Nonetheless, the system we have is VERY STABLE, people prosper, and this system we have is the greatest on the planet BY FAR. It is the envy of the world.

people thrive here and anyone who works hard WILL succeed . period.

Thus, Americans are NOT ready for ANY type of radical change.

And their instinct is RIGHT

Radicalism, generally a tool of the leftist communist types, leads to awful things like 1917 Russia , modern day Venezuela, and 1979 Iran, to name a few examples

Saul Alisnky is considered the father of the modern day democrat Commie-type rabble rouser "were for change" - he is the inspiration for both Clinton and Obama

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

here is the real truth about the democrats , based on alinsky

Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky's real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment '60s radicals and revolutionaries.

Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for '60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.

Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: "Reveille for Radicals" (1946) and "Rules for Radicals" (1971).

"Rules for Radicals" begins with an unusual tribute: "From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."

The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: "My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it." This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: "[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized ... it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes."

Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: "Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is. ... Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority."

But that didn't stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in "life's lottery."

Alinsky's radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

Now, this is why radical change is EVIL to the core , representing communist thought, and serves to try and DESTROY AMERICA and LIBERTY

Libertarians have great ideas. They are, by in large, conservatives.

The basic ideas they have to bring America back to a more constitutional basis of our government is fully agreed to by myself, Mark Levin, Robert Bork, and many other conservatives and constitutional scholars.

However, these changes will ONLY HAPPEN through slow, methodical, rational, logical conservativism within the Republican party, and convincing enough people to vote for people like Ron Paul, such that they make up at least 50% of both houses of congress and the presidency.

It is INCREDIBLY IMMATURE to say, like Ross Perot did, and Ron Paul hints at, that "I AM GOING TO DO THIS BY FIAT"

It will NOT HAPPEN that way and IT SHOULDNT EITHER.

The fact that our government is so entreched and stable is GOOD.

A CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION IS AN OXYMORON

To try and get RID OF THINGS and GO BACK to PREVIOUS TIMES is difficult, but not impossible, and only happens when people are fed up with the system enough to DEMAND IT through their DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

Do you really think for a second that Ron Paul, by himself, could get rid of even ONE goverrment agency, without congress agreeeing? Or the federal reserve?

Of course not.

Ron Paul should try and get the repubican nomination as he is.

He should NOT RUN AS A 3rd party if he doesnt, as it will HURT THE CONSERVATIVES and AID THE LIBERALS, who are the ENEMIES OF LIBERTY and FREEDOM and OUTRIGHT SOCIALISTS.

That is my belief.

It is CLEAR that Perot GAVE Clinton the presidency in 92 and he did tremendous damage to this nation, enthically , morally, militarily, economically, and many other ways.

His old lady will be WAY WORSE.

Now a counter argument you could make is that there are actually more liberals and democrats that would vote for Paul as a 3rd party , but I dont think that is worth the risk

I do for one want to see more real parties emerge in the US, and that we end up with something other than the democrats and republicans

I also think that we should enforce term limits of 12 years . period.

One of the key ideas of the founders was the idea of "citizen-legislator" , people from the private sector serving for awhile and then GOING HOME and DOING SOMETHING ELSE

The main problem we have is with career politicians like the cape cod orcha, Kennedy, and many many others like Byrd and repubicans like Spector

So rant all you want, and make silly assertions, but if you really beleive in the conservative priciples you espouse, you better listen
clsmooth

Con

You say that Republicans and Democrats "couldn't be more different" on these issues. The truth is, if they were more similar, they would be literally the same:

taxes: They both support the unconstitutional income tax. They both support taxation in principle, which is theft.

national security: They both believe, as you do, in Rooseveltian liberalism; i.e. world policing, which undermines our national security. Both want to keep troops in 160 countries and rob the U.S. taxpayer to pay for the defense of Japan, Israel, South Korea, Europe, etc.

spending: They both run up huge deficits, funded by the printing of more fiat money. Historically, government has grown slower when Democrats have been in office. The only "difference" I see, looking from Clinton to Bush on this issue, or Carter to Reagan, is that Republicans spend MORE than Democrats, run up bigger deficits, and cause more inflation of the money supply. If anything, this issue is a cause to vote for a Democrat.

corruption and influence peddling: Come on! Do I really have to respond to this? Duke Cunnignham. Tom DeLay. For every corrupt Democrat you could name, some liberal activist could name a corrupt Republican. There is no difference here, and if you think there is, you are a blind partisan.

morality: Both parties are entirely immoral. You know all about the Dems, but just look above to see a few Republican names. Let me add in Larry Craig and the various other closeted homosexuals who rally against gay equality while soliciting bathroom sex in public. The deficit spending the Republicans love is immoral to the core.

life: Abortion? There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans -- they both think abortion should be decided by the federal government, not the states (as the Constitution says it should). Furthermore, neither party is really against abortion. They use it as a political prop. Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and Ron Paul has a bill that would strip federal jurisdiction on abortion, but none of your "abortion is murder!" representatives are interested.

liberty: Give me a break. The Democrats want to enact social democracy and take away economic liberties, and the Republicans want to enact / have enacted a police state, through Executive dominance and things like the Patriot Act. But the Republicans also hate economic liberty, which is why they love printing fiat money so much.

solarman says I'm a communist because I believe in radical change. That is classic. The Founding Fathers, in his view, were all communists. They wanted radical change enough to take up arms. I want to restore THEIR country, but I'm willing to take the moderate approach of voting for the candidate who reflects my views. And no, I will not vote for the Whigs or the Democrats; I will not vote for slavery. I will only vote for Free Soil, and I will only vote for Ron Paul. The impact my doing so will have on the election is zero. If Dr. Paul does run independently, the impact of millions others like me doing the same may hurt one of the two major-party candidates, but I don't care. The question was "will Ron Paul running hurt the Republicans like in '92" and the answer is NO. The vast majority of people who support Ron Paul would never vote for Romney, Giuliani, McCain, or Huckabee, etc. The Republican Party does not own my vote, that's for sure.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

You didnt address the point about having to work WITHIN the system that we have now in order to effect actual changes rather than having your opinion, and laong with a few thousand others , throwing away a protest vote, and then going back to being ineffective

from your narrow minded and self-righteous perspective, the parties are the same

This could not be further from the truth

But now I change tact

It could be argued that there will be more liberals and democrats that would vote for Paul if he runs 3rd party

and as far as your points go

is everybody EXCEPT Ron Paul corrupt ?

Is HE ALONE , like JESUS H CHRIST, the ONLY one who is pure as the wind driven snow?

I dont supppose I really understand your fervor for this average man which good but not that unusual ideas?

and do you really think Paul will get millions of votes as a 3rd party?

This should be a fun year to watch

cheers
clsmooth

Con

1. I am "working within the system" and supporting Ron Paul for president on the Republican Party ticket. How is that NOT "working within the system"? But yes, if he chooses to run as a third-party or independent candidate, I will vote for him in that capacity, just as 10% of the white male population voted against slavery and for Martin Van Buren in 1848. Did this NOT help bring about slavery's ultimate demise? I think it did. The Founding Fathers did not work "within the system" when they seceded from the British Empire. Ron Paul's candidacy may be the last hope for the "system," and after that, other avenues may need to be explored.

2. The parties are the same, as I've illustrated. What is the difference between the parties on fiat money creation? Zero. This is the engine of big government, and they're both 100% on board. Historically, the dominant factions in American politics have been a Hamiltionian centralist party (the Federalists, the Whigs, the early Republicans), and a Jeffersonian "state's rights" party (the original Jeffersonian Republicans, the Jacksonian Democrats, parts of the post-Civil War Democratic Party). But beginning with William Jennings Bryan's ascendenscy over Grover Cleveland, and then Wilson's election in 1912, there have been two Hamiltonian factions with very little difference between the two. I will not vote for a fiat-money candidate bought and paid for by the Wall Street bankers.

3. Is everybody but Paul corrupt? That depends on your definition. Some of the others may not know they're corrupt -- they may not understand the nature of central banking, etc. But yes, everyone who buys into and politically profits from the fiat-money counterfeiters is corrupt. Just look at the top contributors of all the major candidates, except Paul. They are investment banks. You think "Islam" is the greatest danger to the country -- this blinds you to the ongoing theft being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve System. If you fail to grasp the importance of this issue, then you can inflate the tiny differences between the two parties. But if you recognize that monopolistic control of the money supply and debasement of the currency trump everything else, then you would see that Ron Paul is the only candidate worth voting for. It just so happens that he's right on all the other issues, too.

I need to address something you said in Round 2: You think Ron Paul wants to put himself in charge and do things "by fiat"? Nothing could be further from the truth! Virtually every president since Lincoln has expanded the power of the presidency. Ron Paul would be the first since Grover Cleveland (the best president ever, by the way) to actively work to REDUCE the power of the executive branch and return it to the Congress, the states, and the people. But he would use the power of the veto to slash spending and taxes, and he would use his power as commander in chief to end U.S. imperialism. These are things the Constitution empowers him to do.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Lara.S 8 years ago
Lara.S
There goes Solarman again, copying and pasting text from the Internet. How brilliant. A mind that just scoops up whatever poop smells sweetest to his twisted nose and dumps it all over the place. No wonder he never wins a debate. He can't think for himself.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
solarman, you support fred thompson over ron paul, yet fred thompson is pro-prohibition and paul as against prohibition. I know there are other issues at stake, but keep in mind that Ron Paul can satisfy beliefs of yours that your boy Thompson can not.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Ron Paul is a nut. If he runs as a third party candidate he will take votes away from people who like to vote for nuts. Hence he will actually be hurting Democrats, not Republicans. I encourage him to run for third party, he'll make it easier for the Republicans to win. He's wants an immediate withdrawl any republican that gets the nomination will not withdraw our troops, but the Democrat nominee most definitively will.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I truly do not understand, Solarman, how you could believe this to be a persuasive argument. Are we supposed to see your views by being downcast and realizing your right because you can call people names and say they are immature for their beliefs? It would appear to me that your only basis for believing and trying to prove your argument is right is because it came from your mouth. Props to clsmooth, who actually tried to show some intellect.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Yet again solarman, you continue to use terms you don't understand, and blatently misuse them. Words like "socialist" have actual meanings and aren't simply used as a negative term. Please understand something before you argue about it. Nice job so far clsmooth, as usual.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 els21 9 years ago
els21
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 gogott 9 years ago
gogott
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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