Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

ONLY Ron Paul Can Guarantee Victory Vs Obama.

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 11:53:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Only Ron Paul can guarantee the Republicans a victory against Obama. This is mostly just based on logic. It infuriates me that so few people recognize how much Ron Paul would absolutely own Obama in an election. If you don't agree, you either know very little about politics or cannot understand simple logic. Here I've broken this argument into small facts and conclusions. I'd like anyone who doesn't think Ron Paul would destroy Obama in a landslide victory to try and refute them.

Why Ron Paul Has The Best Chance Of All Republicans Vs. Obama In 2012

Fact 1: The vast majority of Obama's support comes from Democrats.
Fact 2: Democratic voters are generally anti-war and pro-civil liberties (anti-Iraq war, anti-patriot act, anti-drug prohibition, pro-gay marriage).
Fact 3: Obama was re-elected to further much of the Democrats' anti-war, pro-civil liberties agenda.
Fact 4: He lied and did not fulfill many of his promises (regarding foreign policy, patriot act, drug prohibition, civil liberties in general).
Fact 5: Ron Paul has been consistent in his political positions for over three decades. This is common knowledge and as such he is nationally recognized as one of the most trustworthy politicians in Washington today.
Fact 6: Ron Paul is anti-war (or rather anti-aggressive war; he's a non-interventionist) and pro-civil liberties. As such, he opposes the Iraq war, the patriot act, drug prohibition, and federal bans on gay marriage.

Conclusion 1: In a Paul vs Obama election, many former Obama supporters/Democrats would vote for Paul instead, because they know he'd end the wars and fight his hardest to restore the civil liberties that Obama pretended he cared about. This cannot be said for any other major candidate - only Ron Paul has the ability to chip away at Obama's core base of support.

Fact 7: Obama won in 2008 due in large part to support from the youth and independents.
Fact 8: Numerous recent polls confirm that Obama enjoys substantially less success among youth and independents then he did 4 years ago.
Fact 9: Ron Paul currently has the most youth support and the most independent support of any candidate in the race.
Fact 10: Numerous recent polls confirm that Ron Paul has a significant edge over Obama with the independent vote.

Conclusion 2: In a Paul vs Obama election, Paul would absolutely own the independent vote and the youth vote... and certainly do better with independents/youth than any other major Republican candidate.

Fact 11: Most "establishment" Republicans, even those who most disagree with Paul's views, will vote for the Republican nominee regardless of who it is, in order to get Obama out of office.
Fact 12: While Ron Paul would lose a small percentage of traditional Republicans who would refuse to vote for him (presumably based on primarily on foreign policy) so would any other candidate. Mitt Romney, for example, would lose some votes simply because he's Mormon, and also would lose many Tea Party/conservative votes who view him as a flip-flopping moderate.

Conclusion 3: Most Republican voters will vote for Ron Paul if he is the nominee; at least as many as those who'd vote for Mitt Romney, a moderate flip-flopping Mormon whose Massachusetts health care plan served as the basis for Obamacare.

Fact 13: Ron Paul has the support of many libertarians and anarchists who don't usually vote Republican.

Final Conclusion: Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who can get the vote/support of all the following:
- A majority of Republicans
- Significantly more independents than Obama
- Libertarians/anarchists who don't normally vote Republican
- Most importantly, many disillusioned Democrats from Obama's core support base.

As such, it follows that he'd win the election in a landslide. Obama wouldn't even be safe in California, which he EASILY wins if any other candidate gets the nomination. If Ron Paul is the nominee, with his state's rights positions on gay marriage and his anti-prohibition stance, Obama could quite possibly lose that state. That's just one example.

All the time I see polls indicating that nobody thinks Paul could beat Obama, or that other candidates could do better. I recently saw a poll on CNN that said 4% of Americans think he could. If that's really true, I guess only 4% of Americans know anything at all about American politics or have a shred of common sense.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 2:40:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2011 11:53:17 PM, jat93 wrote:
Only Ron Paul can guarantee the Republicans a victory against Obama. This is mostly just based on logic. It infuriates me that so few people recognize how much Ron Paul would absolutely own Obama in an election. If you don't agree, you either know very little about politics or cannot understand simple logic. Here I've broken this argument into small facts and conclusions. I'd like anyone who doesn't think Ron Paul would destroy Obama in a landslide victory to try and refute them.

Why Ron Paul Has The Best Chance Of All Republicans Vs. Obama In 2012

Fact 1: The vast majority of Obama's support comes from Democrats.
Fact 2: Democratic voters are generally anti-war and pro-civil liberties (anti-Iraq war, anti-patriot act, anti-drug prohibition, pro-gay marriage).
Fact 3: Obama was re-elected to further much of the Democrats' anti-war, pro-civil liberties agenda.
Fact 4: He lied and did not fulfill many of his promises (regarding foreign policy, patriot act, drug prohibition, civil liberties in general).
Fact 5: Ron Paul has been consistent in his political positions for over three decades. This is common knowledge and as such he is nationally recognized as one of the most trustworthy politicians in Washington today.
Fact 6: Ron Paul is anti-war (or rather anti-aggressive war; he's a non-interventionist) and pro-civil liberties. As such, he opposes the Iraq war, the patriot act, drug prohibition, and federal bans on gay marriage.

Conclusion 1: In a Paul vs Obama election, many former Obama supporters/Democrats would vote for Paul instead, because they know he'd end the wars and fight his hardest to restore the civil liberties that Obama pretended he cared about. This cannot be said for any other major candidate - only Ron Paul has the ability to chip away at Obama's core base of support.

Fact 7: Obama won in 2008 due in large part to support from the youth and independents.
Fact 8: Numerous recent polls confirm that Obama enjoys substantially less success among youth and independents then he did 4 years ago.
Fact 9: Ron Paul currently has the most youth support and the most independent support of any candidate in the race.
Fact 10: Numerous recent polls confirm that Ron Paul has a significant edge over Obama with the independent vote.

Conclusion 2: In a Paul vs Obama election, Paul would absolutely own the independent vote and the youth vote... and certainly do better with independents/youth than any other major Republican candidate.

Fact 11: Most "establishment" Republicans, even those who most disagree with Paul's views, will vote for the Republican nominee regardless of who it is, in order to get Obama out of office.
Fact 12: While Ron Paul would lose a small percentage of traditional Republicans who would refuse to vote for him (presumably based on primarily on foreign policy) so would any other candidate. Mitt Romney, for example, would lose some votes simply because he's Mormon, and also would lose many Tea Party/conservative votes who view him as a flip-flopping moderate.

Conclusion 3: Most Republican voters will vote for Ron Paul if he is the nominee; at least as many as those who'd vote for Mitt Romney, a moderate flip-flopping Mormon whose Massachusetts health care plan served as the basis for Obamacare.

Fact 13: Ron Paul has the support of many libertarians and anarchists who don't usually vote Republican.

Final Conclusion: Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who can get the vote/support of all the following:
- A majority of Republicans
- Significantly more independents than Obama
- Libertarians/anarchists who don't normally vote Republican
- Most importantly, many disillusioned Democrats from Obama's core support base.

As such, it follows that he'd win the election in a landslide. Obama wouldn't even be safe in California, which he EASILY wins if any other candidate gets the nomination. If Ron Paul is the nominee, with his state's rights positions on gay marriage and his anti-prohibition stance, Obama could quite possibly lose that state. That's just one example.

All the time I see polls indicating that nobody thinks Paul could beat Obama, or that other candidates could do better. I recently saw a poll on CNN that said 4% of Americans think he could. If that's really true, I guess only 4% of Americans know anything at all about American politics or have a shred of common sense.

LOL not gonna happen, GOP is gonna let Obama have a second term, just like the Dems gave Bush a second term.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 4:01:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 2:40:06 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/6/2011 11:53:17 PM, jat93 wrote:
Only Ron Paul can guarantee the Republicans a victory against Obama. This is mostly just based on logic. It infuriates me that so few people recognize how much Ron Paul would absolutely own Obama in an election. If you don't agree, you either know very little about politics or cannot understand simple logic. Here I've broken this argument into small facts and conclusions. I'd like anyone who doesn't think Ron Paul would destroy Obama in a landslide victory to try and refute them.

Why Ron Paul Has The Best Chance Of All Republicans Vs. Obama In 2012

Fact 1: The vast majority of Obama's support comes from Democrats.
Fact 2: Democratic voters are generally anti-war and pro-civil liberties (anti-Iraq war, anti-patriot act, anti-drug prohibition, pro-gay marriage).
Fact 3: Obama was re-elected to further much of the Democrats' anti-war, pro-civil liberties agenda.
Fact 4: He lied and did not fulfill many of his promises (regarding foreign policy, patriot act, drug prohibition, civil liberties in general).
Fact 5: Ron Paul has been consistent in his political positions for over three decades. This is common knowledge and as such he is nationally recognized as one of the most trustworthy politicians in Washington today.
Fact 6: Ron Paul is anti-war (or rather anti-aggressive war; he's a non-interventionist) and pro-civil liberties. As such, he opposes the Iraq war, the patriot act, drug prohibition, and federal bans on gay marriage.

Conclusion 1: In a Paul vs Obama election, many former Obama supporters/Democrats would vote for Paul instead, because they know he'd end the wars and fight his hardest to restore the civil liberties that Obama pretended he cared about. This cannot be said for any other major candidate - only Ron Paul has the ability to chip away at Obama's core base of support.

Fact 7: Obama won in 2008 due in large part to support from the youth and independents.
Fact 8: Numerous recent polls confirm that Obama enjoys substantially less success among youth and independents then he did 4 years ago.
Fact 9: Ron Paul currently has the most youth support and the most independent support of any candidate in the race.
Fact 10: Numerous recent polls confirm that Ron Paul has a significant edge over Obama with the independent vote.

Conclusion 2: In a Paul vs Obama election, Paul would absolutely own the independent vote and the youth vote... and certainly do better with independents/youth than any other major Republican candidate.

Fact 11: Most "establishment" Republicans, even those who most disagree with Paul's views, will vote for the Republican nominee regardless of who it is, in order to get Obama out of office.
Fact 12: While Ron Paul would lose a small percentage of traditional Republicans who would refuse to vote for him (presumably based on primarily on foreign policy) so would any other candidate. Mitt Romney, for example, would lose some votes simply because he's Mormon, and also would lose many Tea Party/conservative votes who view him as a flip-flopping moderate.

Conclusion 3: Most Republican voters will vote for Ron Paul if he is the nominee; at least as many as those who'd vote for Mitt Romney, a moderate flip-flopping Mormon whose Massachusetts health care plan served as the basis for Obamacare.

Fact 13: Ron Paul has the support of many libertarians and anarchists who don't usually vote Republican.

Final Conclusion: Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who can get the vote/support of all the following:
- A majority of Republicans
- Significantly more independents than Obama
- Libertarians/anarchists who don't normally vote Republican
- Most importantly, many disillusioned Democrats from Obama's core support base.

As such, it follows that he'd win the election in a landslide. Obama wouldn't even be safe in California, which he EASILY wins if any other candidate gets the nomination. If Ron Paul is the nominee, with his state's rights positions on gay marriage and his anti-prohibition stance, Obama could quite possibly lose that state. That's just one example.

All the time I see polls indicating that nobody thinks Paul could beat Obama, or that other candidates could do better. I recently saw a poll on CNN that said 4% of Americans think he could. If that's really true, I guess only 4% of Americans know anything at all about American politics or have a shred of common sense.

LOL not gonna happen, GOP is gonna let Obama have a second term, just like the Dems gave Bush a second term.

Paul's likelihood of winning the nomination is irrelevant to this topic... My contention is that if the Republicans really want Obama out in 2012, Paul is the only way to guarantee that. Obviously for Paul capturing the nomination is infinitely harder than winning the general election (as a Republican).
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 5:11:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Paul's likelihood of winning the nomination is irrelevant to this topic... My contention is that if the Republicans really want Obama out in 2012, Paul is the only way to guarantee that. Obviously for Paul capturing the nomination is infinitely harder than winning the general election (as a Republican).

mmmm no. RP could never win general election. Sixty percent of the electorate LOVE getting unfunded mandates. A brief list of some things that would go away if we adopt RPs philosophy (which i favor)
School Loans
Health Insurance
DOE
Federal EPA
Social Security
UN involvement
About 50% of all federal government emplyees
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 5:54:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love how the people that support Paul so much try and deny his political standing in polls and the rest of America. I'll concede that his advocates are the most vocal, but certainly not the most plentiful. Not only will Paul not win the nomination, but even if he did, he guarantees nothing, Obama will still certainly win.

http://www.nationalpolls.com...

If you look above, Paul loses almost every national poll to Obama, and loses a majority of states to him too,...Paul losing New York for instance by a margin of 30 electoral votes. He doesn't have a chance as much as you and Geo want to believe he does.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 12:21:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even mainstream news articles have pointed out the same thing. Matter of fact, almost every poll on who has best chance against Obama, the results are Ron Paul almost every time, if not all the time.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 12:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Over the last several months, the Generic Ballot has been showing a swing to the democrats - http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

As for Obama vs the field - http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

We currently show that Romney has the best chance against Obama, down only 0.9 points, followed by Gingrich, down 5.7 points, and Paul bringing in a distant third at 7.7 points down (than Hunts at 8.6 and Perry and Cain tied at 10.2).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 12:31:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jat, do you want to debate this formally or in the forums?

Also, are you arguing specifically that only Ron Paul could beat Obama, or that Paul WILL beat Obama? I would debate the latter. As for the first claim, I agree... or at least I really wish that were the case.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 12:34:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 12:31:32 PM, Danielle wrote:
Jat, do you want to debate this formally or in the forums?

Also, are you arguing specifically that only Ron Paul could beat Obama, or that Paul WILL beat Obama? I would debate the latter. As for the first claim, I agree... or at least I really wish that were the case.

Well, he did say "Guarantee" which is basically the same as "will" and not just "most likely."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 12:41:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 12:34:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Well, he did say "Guarantee" which is basically the same as "will" and not just "most likely."

Oh, true dat.
President of DDO
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:02:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 12:41:04 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/7/2011 12:34:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Well, he did say "Guarantee" which is basically the same as "will" and not just "most likely."

Oh, true dat.

Yeah, guaranteed provided he wins the nomination, which will obviously be very tough for him. Quite unlikely. I don't think he'll be the Republican nominee, though I'll do everything I can to help him win it. Though I do predict he will win Iowa and place a close 2nd in New Hampshire.

Not sure why anyone thought I even remotely implied that he'd get the nom, that's totally irrelevant to this post. My point is solely that he, more than any of the major candidates, would totally destroy Obama in a general election. Nobody can get the independents like he can, not even Obama. Obviously no candidate can get libertarians/anarchists to vote for him like he can. And most importantly... only Paul can attract a significant amount of Democrats to vote for him over Obama.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:09:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
well, maybe romney would be a better choice when it comes to beating obama because he can debate better, Paul is really extreme on iran, and ill lose the Jewish liberal vote. Also his legalizing heroin will let him lose the moderate democrat and independent vote. So overall his libertarian views mas kill his victory, so huntsman and Romney would be then best to win. But newt would just be my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:15:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 5:54:22 AM, 000ike wrote:
I love how the people that support Paul so much try and deny his political standing in polls and the rest of America. I'll concede that his advocates are the most vocal, but certainly not the most plentiful. Not only will Paul not win the nomination, but even if he did, he guarantees nothing, Obama will still certainly win.

http://www.nationalpolls.com...

If you look above, Paul loses almost every national poll to Obama, and loses a majority of states to him too,...Paul losing New York for instance by a margin of 30 electoral votes. He doesn't have a chance as much as you and Geo want to believe he does.

Congratulations, you completely ignored anything I mentioned in my post. If you're going to reply on this thread and say he has no chance vs Obama, at least respond to my argument that he does.

I guess I'll sum up my argument briefly in 4 points. Curious to see what you think...

1) In a Paul vs Obama election, many former Obama supporters/Democrats would vote for Paul instead, because they know he'd end the wars and fight his hardest to restore the civil liberties that Obama pretended he cared about. This cannot be said for any other major candidate - only Ron Paul has the ability to chip away at Obama's core base of support.

2) In a Paul vs Obama election, Paul would absolutely own the independent vote and the youth vote... and certainly do better with independents/youth than any other major Republican candidate.

3) Most Republican voters will vote for Ron Paul if he is the nominee; at least around as many as those who'd vote for Mitt Romney, a moderate flip-flopping Mormon whose Massachusetts health care plan served as the basis for Obamacare.

4) Ron Paul has the support of many libertarians and anarchists who don't usually vote Republican.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:19:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And by the way people, there have been numerous polls confirming that Paul would either beat or tie Obama in a general election. Here are two from late August and late September respectively. I don't think it matters that they're a couple of months old, because anyone who supported Paul then is supporting him now. If anything he's probably gained a few Obama supporters since then, and Obama has probably lost some of his (not only to Paul).

Late August - http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

Late September - http://finance.yahoo.com...

Also a poll from a few days ago that shows he leads the Republicans versus Obama in Iowa (though I grant that this is probably a result of his massive, organized campaigning there): http://www.ronpaul.com...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 5:14:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:19:58 PM, jat93 wrote:
And by the way people, there have been numerous polls confirming that Paul would either beat or tie Obama in a general election. Here are two from late August and late September respectively. I don't think it matters that they're a couple of months old, because anyone who supported Paul then is supporting him now. If anything he's probably gained a few Obama supporters since then, and Obama has probably lost some of his (not only to Paul).

Late August - http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

Late September - http://finance.yahoo.com...

Also a poll from a few days ago that shows he leads the Republicans versus Obama in Iowa (though I grant that this is probably a result of his massive, organized campaigning there): http://www.ronpaul.com...

I lie to pollsters when they call. Polls are only as good as the questions, and the ability of the person polled to understand. Most people can not grasp complex sentences and pollsters count on that.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 9:59:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:19:58 PM, jat93 wrote:
And by the way people, there have been numerous polls confirming that Paul would either beat or tie Obama in a general election. Here are two from late August and late September respectively. I don't think it matters that they're a couple of months old, because anyone who supported Paul then is supporting him now. If anything he's probably gained a few Obama supporters since then, and Obama has probably lost some of his (not only to Paul).

Late August - http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

Late September - http://finance.yahoo.com...

Also a poll from a few days ago that shows he leads the Republicans versus Obama in Iowa (though I grant that this is probably a result of his massive, organized campaigning there): http://www.ronpaul.com...

Congrats, you've pointed to two, out-dated polls. While dozens of polls show the opposite. I've already pointed to RCP, which does poll averages, and it shows him not able to beat Obama, and that two other Republicans have a better chance than him.

It also shows that the latest Rasmussen poll (10/28 - 10/29) gives Obama a 9 point advantage over Paul.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

Face facts.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 2:12:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 5:54:22 AM, 000ike wrote:
I love how the people that support Paul so much try and deny his political standing in polls and the rest of America. I'll concede that his advocates are the most vocal, but certainly not the most plentiful. Not only will Paul not win the nomination, but even if he did, he guarantees nothing, Obama will still certainly win.

http://www.nationalpolls.com...

If you look above, Paul loses almost every national poll to Obama, and loses a majority of states to him too,...Paul losing New York for instance by a margin of 30 electoral votes. He doesn't have a chance as much as you and Geo want to believe he does.

This.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 2:18:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:15:16 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 12/7/2011 5:54:22 AM, 000ike wrote:
I love how the people that support Paul so much try and deny his political standing in polls and the rest of America. I'll concede that his advocates are the most vocal, but certainly not the most plentiful. Not only will Paul not win the nomination, but even if he did, he guarantees nothing, Obama will still certainly win.

http://www.nationalpolls.com...

If you look above, Paul loses almost every national poll to Obama, and loses a majority of states to him too,...Paul losing New York for instance by a margin of 30 electoral votes. He doesn't have a chance as much as you and Geo want to believe he does.

Congratulations, you completely ignored anything I mentioned in my post. If you're going to reply on this thread and say he has no chance vs Obama, at least respond to my argument that he does.

I guess I'll sum up my argument briefly in 4 points. Curious to see what you think...

1) In a Paul vs Obama election, many former Obama supporters/Democrats would vote for Paul instead, because they know he'd end the wars and fight his hardest to restore the civil liberties that Obama pretended he cared about. This cannot be said for any other major candidate - only Ron Paul has the ability to chip away at Obama's core base of support.

2) In a Paul vs Obama election, Paul would absolutely own the independent vote and the youth vote... and certainly do better with independents/youth than any other major Republican candidate.

3) Most Republican voters will vote for Ron Paul if he is the nominee; at least around as many as those who'd vote for Mitt Romney, a moderate flip-flopping Mormon whose Massachusetts health care plan served as the basis for Obamacare.

4) Ron Paul has the support of many libertarians and anarchists who don't usually vote Republican.

He responded to your post with actual polls. Your convoluted guesswork isn't matching up with reality.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 6:34:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ron Paul is significantly behind in the latest Republican polls I've seen on television (not sure of their credibility, tbh - I haven't looked into it yet). Romney and Gingrich are tied at 20% while Ron Paul has 10% or something like that. I'm still waiting on the OP to debate me that Ron Paul's victory over Obama would be GUARANTEED if he were to win the Republican nomination. I highly doubt this debate will ever come into fruition, so calling him out publicly is gratifying enough for me ;) I think the blatantly obvious fact of the matter is that if you can't even win over your own party (which by admission jat93 said was likely the case), that the odds of you winning over BOTH parties is just ridiculous. Hurr durr durr. Anyway, I'm still up for the debate if you/anyone are/is.
President of DDO