CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:39
Arguments:19
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Who would you like to see running the USA? (19)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3324) pic



Who would you like to see running the USA?

Do you think that Obama is the right man for the job? If not who? Anyone could be a candidate who would you pick to run and why.

Add New Argument
5 points

i say jc since he is good at debating jc for president or i say gorge bush

Side: jc or gorge bush

Ralph Nader. My reasons are because he has an incredible endurance, uses logic, actually fights for items that support those of the founding fathers and isn't a pawn.

Side: Ralph Nader
Republican08(87) Disputed
1 point

Nader is a joke. However, I will not say too much bad about him because he helps steal votes from the Democrats.

Side: Mitt Romney
1 point

I have heard many good things about Nader from a couple of my Mother's friends. But none of them would vote for Nader. The excuse from one of them was ' It would be a waste of my vote '. To which I must agree he has never been close to being a contender in the presidential election even if he is a good candidate which is unfortunate.

Side: Ralph Nader
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

Nader is too far to the left. He wouldn't be able to work with Republicans.

Side: Obama
1 point

Ralph Nader is a tragic hero. The exact reasons you, me, and the rest of his supporters like him are exactly why he'll never get elected. Pawn in 2012!

Side: Obama
3 points

Obama is the best person we have at the moment. He's smart and practical, he cares about the American people, and he listens to people who know what they're talking about. Even he's more liberal than some would like, you have to agree that he is an excellent president.

Side: Obama
DaWolfman(3324) Disputed
3 points

I am not disagreeing with the Obama is the best person to be president at the moment. But I am disagreeing with the excellent president part. He has not been in office long enough to make himself an excellent president.

Side: Obama
3 points

Fair enough. But look at what he's done so far: a centrist approach to fixing the economy, closing Guantanamo, allowing stem cell research, responsibly withdrawing from Iraq. It all looks pretty good to me.

Side: Obama
1 point

I was going to say the same thing. So far I cannot imagine anyone doing a better job of balancing all these problems, and with a cool head. His centrist approach is evidenced by his ability to piss off both the far right, and the far left, while keeping his approval rating close to 70.

Imagine that, most Americans are in the middle somewhere.

Side: Obama
2 points

Absolutely Mitt Romney. He is the perfect man for the job! He has strong buisness experience and a proven record. He has managed a company in Boston, where he was very successful. When he was the Governor of Massachusettes he cut pork and cut their state's defeceit. Mitt Romney would fix our economy like he did in Massachusettes.

Side: Mitt Romney
1 point

I absolutely agree. I seriously wish he was in office right now. He would be planning to do something for our country tonight instead of going on Jay Leno.

Side: Mitt Romney
2 points

Anyone could be a candidate, .......anyone!?

Jonathan Krohn I think he could do a pretty good job. He has plenty of experience too.

Side: just kidding but he is cool
1 point

RON PAUL, cd.

Come on, if you watched the debates and understood them, you knew he was the only one talking straight about anything. Too bad no one seemed to care the corporate media sabotaged his campaign because of his dangerously reasonable ideas. This is why our country's going down the shitter.

Oh, and Obama was the best major candidate, but they're all working for the same goals. Both parties are irreparably corrupt, but at least the Dems sell out America a little bit slower than the Reps.

Side: just kidding but he is cool
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

are you going by the fact that they decided to stop listening to him?

this was because he hardly had a following in the Republican Party (which was the nomination he was going for).

Whether you agree with his views or not, there was no way he would get the party nomination (mainly because he conflicted with them on many issues).

Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and an extreme one by the way. He wants to eliminate the FBI and Homeland Security and the public education system. Republicans, despite being against big government spending, are not for radical cut downs like that. Republicans believe in less spending, but not a complete elimination of most government spending (especially when it comes to security).

He's also for going back to the gold standard, which even if he were successful, would cause major bankruptcy and eliminate our corporate system. Basically sending us back to the stone ages (agricultural age really) where everyone had to grow their own crops and such. Republicans are not for this.

The "Corporate Media" just knew that he was a waste of time and decided to devote their time to the major candidates (the ones they knew the folks watching at home actually cared about).

By the way, Ron Paul is even more hated by Liberals because of his extreme agenda of cutting down the size of government. Libertarians in general do not believe in federal taxing or social programs. Imagine all the poor who would starve to death and the children of those poor that would become homeless and also die.

A necessary cleansing, but Liberals and Democrats hate this even more than Republicans do (even Republicans believe that the rich need to help a little, just not as much as the Democrats say).

and don't expect corrupt media to go away once Ron Paul is voted in. If anything, it would be encouraged because the FCC would be eliminated and any form of government watchdog group will be eliminated as well. The media will be able to get away with anything. They can lie all they want, the Libertarians don't believe in regulating this at all. The media will become 500% more corrupt and would become useless to rational Americans.

I'm guessing this is not what you want, but this is what Ron Paul and his followers would bring if they ran the country.

Side: Dennis Miller
HGrey87(750) Disputed
1 point

Your chronology is off, and you don't seem to understand the tremendous influence national media has on the elections. He hardly had a following because they decided to stop giving him media attention. The Republican Party very well could have selected him had he gotten the most support among Republican candidates, despite being at odds with some of their partisan beliefs.

And as extreme as some of his beliefs are, you'd be surprised how many "mainstreamers" will have their minds changed if they just come to understand the rationales behind the arguments. That's why the partisan interests in the corporate media censored him: Ron Paul argued with logic and persuasion rather than buzzwords and bullshit. His anti-imperialist stances would have been an extremely timely exchange of hard power for soft power.

The shift to the gold standard would be a little better managed than that, come on. And since you're on the internet, I'm assuming you've seen that video about why the Fractional Reserve system is a ticking time bomb. Get Paul's rationales for HIS opinions from HIM and HIS SUPPORTERS, not from someone who wishes to undercut his message. If you watched the Rep debates, it was blatantly obvious that none of the other candidates could counter his reasoning. They basically dismissed him or tried to distract the audience with patriotic shit (Giu911iani).

The "Corporate Media" just knew that he was a waste of time and decided to devote their time to the major candidates (the ones they knew the folks watching at home actually cared about).

This is exactly the rationale the corporate media used. Don't you think that the rich, powerful, often politically motivated media elite have more in mind than "What the public wants?" How about protecting their ill-gotten profits? Again, Paul's popularity only fell behind when the media decided to lock him out of debates.

Not just Paul. I remember a friend who supported Gravel mentioning that the only questions he got were idiotic fluff: "Who was your favorite teacher in high school?"

You mean that magnanimous, objective FCC that told local news stations not to report on Paul? Not saying the FCC should go, but Paul definitely wouldn't get everything on his agenda put through. As much as Bush would have you believe, the president is not all-powerful. Paul's dedication to the constitution would mean he wouldn't have abused the powers of his office to get what he thinks is right done. The thing about an extreme president would not be that he gets extreme things done, but that he asks the extreme questions we've been needing to ask ourselves for years.

I'm going to paste some stuff from an article I wrote last year. The only muscles in my hands that aren't tired are the ones that do Ctrl+V :P

"Paul would like to end American imperialism and intervention abroad, end the drug war, and end undue government support for HMO's ; these are direct affronts to the American military-, prison-, and medical-industrial complexes, respectively, and as such he is a ripe target for corporate interests to ensure he does not get the exposure he needs to even bring these issues to the public arena. "

"he leads in campaign contributions from the military above any other Republican.

On November 5th, Guy Fawkes' Day, he raised $5M in a campaign contribution surge that broke the record for a one-day fundraiser. It went almost unreported in the mainstream.

Over 4,800 articles in the mainstream media covered Mitt Romney's Iowa straw poll victory, into which he poured over $200,000. 162 articles mentioned Ron Paul's victories in 5 straw polls: New Hampshire Taxpayers (July 7); North Carolina, Gaston GOP (August 13); Stafford, NH (August 18); Alabama (August 18); and Washington state (August 21).

A Zogby poll of 1,009 voters presented 4 candidate resumes without names (called a “Blind Bio” poll), and asked for voter preferences between them based on 54 categories. Paul won 90% of the categories with 33% of the votes, compared to Giuliani's 19%. Normally, Zogby charges extra for a press release. But they decided to release one for free (November 20, 2007), moving the focus to those 349 poll-takers who identified as Republican. When they sliced the numbers that way, Giuliani came out with 34%, Paul with 9%. They pushed the overall results of the poll to a short statement at the bottom.

Rep. Paul came third in a straw poll (October 20, 2007) of mostly Christian conservative voters at the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit. In most of the sources who reported the results, they omitted his placing or participation. Christian Conservatives are considered a major base of the Republican party's vote.

Paul Joseph Watson, writing for Prisonplanet.com, did an analysis of a June 5, 2007 CNN Debate, in which Paul was asked 8 questions and spoke for about 6 and a half minutes. In contrast, Giuliani got 14 questions and spoke for 17 minutes. Paul, the only doctor taking part in the debate, was passed over for Giuliani for a question about Health Care. “In addition,” writes Watson, “after the debate Giuliani, Romney and McCain all got immediate interviews with either Wolf Blitzer or Larry King whereas Ron Paul was dismissed, despite the fact that he has been making headlines since the last debate after his confrontation with Rudy Giuliani and won CNN's own debate poll."

“Even aside from this, in the past debates were strictly time-controlled and one candidate was not given preference over another. If this is the way the corporate media chooses to run the show, then fair enough - but don't pretend that these debates are anything other than undemocratic, staged and rigged theater that are designed to cull underdogs while establishment-approved candidates are exalted.”

" Paul was even the target of a smear attempt by MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, who invited a Nevada pimp, Dennis Hof, and his two prostitutes to Paul's Reno News Conference on November 26th. The Associated Press implied that Paul had solicited Hof's endorsement. The fact that Carlson invited Hof is only mentioned at the bottom, far below the headline, “Paul Endorsed by Nevada Brothel Owner.”

Rep. Paul wants little to do with corporations. He won't accept their contributions, and every bit of his $9M raised is from personal contributions averaging about $40. An online comment by “Jeremy:” “Wouldn't you consider 1 dollar given by a poor man more representative than 100 dollars given by a millionaire? Remember, those BIG DOLLAR AMOUNTS that 'top tier' candidates have, have many, many strings attached. Do you think they're getting these HUGE DONATIONS without any consideration expected in return? If you answered yes, you're naive in the most child-like way possible.” Conversely, this gives those major donors reason to ensure that Paul doesn't stand a chance."

" Christian continues his impassioned plea to take back our Democracy: “Let me put it to you this way:... journalism is a profession, not a trade, and... What I mean by this is that plenty of people in the media have the opportunity to make as much as they're willing to sell themselves for. I can't really say how many journalists are willing to lie to make more money, or even [to peddle their] political influence, but the fact is that they're very able, and there are plenty of incentives to do so, not just money. Any political issue.

“But look at the big guys. Now, this isn't 100%, but there are quite a few [candidates who] have strings attached. And when they're not being manipulated, they're the ones pulling the strings. That's how a lot of them get successful, and stay in power. So they're much more likely to be kind of filtering the information you get. And naturally they're involved in politics: money, power, influence. There's a reason they call them the 'king makers.'

“It's just hard for most people to really be aware. I mean, how do you find corruption? Information. If the people who control information are corrupt, then... what? For most people, keeping an eye on the powerful people just means watching the news.” "

I know. "It's huge." I'm used to that reaction ;)

Side: Dennis Miller
1 point

Dennis Miller.

He's a libertarian but moderate about it. Basically a common sense centrist. So far, he's the only guy in the fuckin' world who has ever explained the right way to get shit done.

on politicians... THEY ALL SUCK!. even McCain, who was the only person i actually had hope for, was this old dying man who couldn't get the energy to show how angry he was. They all fuckin' suck (so far as i can see, there may be a good one who also makes sense).

Miller:

Supports Increasing Military

Against Big government spending

Against increasing taxes

Against gun control

For legalizing marijuana and prostitution

For abortion and gay marriage

Against Political Correctness and most forms of censorship

Against elimination of the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security (what the politician Libertarians are for, which is where they lose me)

For having Generals fight the War and not the Media

And he's a funny guy.

the one flaw is that Dennis isn't a politician, but as for being a president, all he has to do is know what he needs to get done and see how he will get that done.

Or, at least, someone who thinks exactly like him. or ever better, exactly like me (but we'd all be doomed, Think Matrix).

Side: Dennis Miller

It is now 2015 and President Obama is the right person to be running the USA.

Side: Dennis Miller