CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
7
Should have nominated Ron Paul He was not a good candidate
Debate Score:21
Arguments:16
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Should have nominated Ron Paul (9)
 
 He was not a good candidate (7)

Debate Creator

judas(295) pic



Why didn't Ron Paul get the republican nomination?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uDJoQeSgx24/T5Unx1wXNTI/AAAAAAAAOzM/UkgwANxsV84/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png

 

 

Should have nominated Ron Paul

Side Score: 14
VS.

He was not a good candidate

Side Score: 7

He clearly was the best candidate for not only the Libertarian Party but also the Republican Party. He is the reason why Austrian Economics has grown in interest over the last 25 years.

THANK YOU, RON PAUL!!!

Side: Should have nominated Ron Paul
2 points

He didn't get the nomination because he doesn't have the fund-raising to get the word out enough and doesn't support military interventionism like most of conservative America seems to.

He's too good for the Republican Party, though. I expect he'll return to the Libertarian Party soon, as this may have been his last presidential run. He'll be retiring soon after that, I imagine.

Side: Should have nominated Ron Paul
2 points

Ron Paul calls it how it is, he is a straight shooter and points out the corruption in the government. He would get things back to the way they need to be, and the rest of the dirty politicians don't want that to happen. They want someone that keeps the American people under the fog and not knowing exactly how bad the government truly is.

Side: Should have nominated Ron Paul
2 points

Because the elitists do not care what the people want. I straight up voted for Ron Paul with Judge Andrew Napolitano as the Vice President. I knew they would lose, but I cannot in good conscience support support people that I do not believe in, so this is how I voted.

Side: Should have nominated Ron Paul
1 point

You fucked up America. We could have had a decent candidate but you fucked it up.

Side: Should have nominated Ron Paul
1 point

Oh, mon Dieu, l'enfer a déjà gelé! Nous sommes d'accord sur quelque chose! o.O

Side: Should have nominated Ron Paul
judas(295) Disputed
1 point

Nous sommes d'accord sur beaucoup de choses. Je ne suis pas un connard à ce sujet comme vous êtes.

Side: He was not a good candidate
1 point

Because the elitists do not care what the people want. I straight up voted for Ron Paul with Judge Andrew Napolitano as the Vice President. I knew they would lose, but I cannot in good conscience support support people that i do not believe in, so this is how I voted.

Side: Should have nominated Ron Paul
1 point

Let me start this by stating that I am, in fact, a self-identified libertarian. Ron Paul would not only have not beaten President Obama, but would have been an ineffective president at best.

It is my opinion that many other libertarians saw Ron Paul as effective solely on is desire to abolish the war on drugs, but it's vastly more important we look at his foreign policy. He goes beyond non-interventionist and struts deep into isolationist territory. WHICH IS NOT FEASIBLE WITH TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY. Our ocean boundaries are not enough to keep us safe on their own any more. Do we need to pull back and reign in our foreign "defense" policies and spending? Hell yes. Do we need to go back to an era of pretending foreign interests can't be a threat to us domestically? No, and I think it's dangerous to do so. And then when it came to securing our borders with a border fence (I disagree with a fence/wall too, but for different reasons) the Congressman said in an interview that if the government made a fence to keep people out they could use it to keep people in, further showing his disconnect to our current state of technology in the world.

When I talked to friends about Ron Paul, we tend to agree that he's about 30% awesome ideas, 40% good-to-great ideas, 20% wat. and 10% batshit insane.

Not to mention that Governor Johnson was a better candidate, even on abortion (Paul is avowedly pro-life [so much for libertarianism]).

Side: He was not a good candidate
Sitara(11082) Disputed
1 point

Just because someone disagrees with their party on one issues does not mean that they are not loyal to said party. I believed that healthcare was a right even when I was a conservative. I obviously disagree with Doctor Paul on the abortion issue, but I respect and trust him.

Side: Should have nominated Ron Paul
1 point

Even if Paul was perfect in every other way, you cant propose "Libertarianism" (even a "moderate" form) and get elected. People realize that you can't let the free market "run the world". 50% of Ron Paul's "fans" (remember most of America is pretty uninformed) did not understand what Libertarianism even is. For example, everyone is for "smaller government", "end the war on drugs", etc, but put put Ron Paul in a "final debate" and have him describe Libertarianism and he will instantly loose the election. I think All those people who think Paul is a "nice old guy with some groovy ideas" will realize his core ideas are unworkable.

Side: He was not a good candidate

Ron Paul is a radical and the majority of voters are not going to elect a radical for President.

Side: He was not a good candidate

Ron Paul is a radical and this is the reason why he did not get the GOP nomination.

Side: He was not a good candidate