Ron Paul 2012

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. The Issues: 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.