Ron Paul Would Have Crushed Obama in the Presidential Debate

[sailingaway]

Well, I've got to smack some sense into him somehow. Or, at the very least, I've got to expose his 'misconceptions' for the baldfaced lies they are.



The level of denial this character has achieved doesn't change a thing. If Ron Paul were the nominee, the Republican Party would be on the way to the White House. Simple. And anyone who has talked seriously with a real liberal, or a real independent, knows it.

You can make your point without name calling. It is just lazy and you know it.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Ron is adept at making philosophical points, but he really lacks statistical details, which Romney was rattling off. I tend to agree with you.

This. Obama would've been able to demagogue Ron and his views quite easily, both in the debates and especially in a blizzard of television ads.

Imagine this with a billion dollar budget behind it.

 

[acptulsa]

On the federal level with all of us fact checking them? You're kidding, right? There would have been a whole lot less of that and a whole lot more of this:



So, how did it work out for Carlson? A billion dollar budget just would have insured it bit Obama in the ass even harder. So Carlson demagogued. And lost. Obviously, demagoguery doesn't always win in the end.

 

[sailingaway]

This. Obama would've been able to demagogue Ron and his views quite easily, both in the debates and especially in a blizzard of television ads.

Imagine this with a billion dollar budget behind it.

Obama's trillion for ads of course would have dominated, but in the debate Ron would have just called out demagoguing as it occured, just as he did with Chris Matthews:



Ron has the inherent advantage of speaking from principle so he doesnt' get that 'frozen in the headlights' moment the candidates waiting for feedback from their focus groups get.

 

[COpatriot]

Someone said there weren't any anti-Paul ads which is ridiculous. Who else remembers that slanderous attack ad from Israel-firster Gary Bauer?

 

[sailingaway]

Someone said there weren't any anti-Paul ads which is ridiculous. Who else remembers that slanderous attack ad from Israel-firster Gary Bauer?

It doesn't matter because the corporate special interest group known as mains stream media gave untold advertising dollars smearing him. It didn't take ads. And the other candidates were given media time for free in which they used time to smear Ron.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Obama's trillion for ads of course would have dominated, but in the debate Ron would have just called out demagoguing as it occured, just as he did with Chris Matthews:



Ron has the inherent advantage of speaking from principle so he doesnt' get that 'frozen in the headlights' moment the candidates waiting for feedback from their focus groups get.

You have a higher opinion of the intelligence of the average voter than I.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

On the federal level with all of us fact checking them? You're kidding, right? There would have been a whole lot less of that and a whole lot more of this:



So, how did it work out for Carlson? A billion dollar budget just would have insured it bit Obama in the ass even harder. So Carlson demagogued. And lost. Obviously, demagoguery doesn't always win in the end.

All our fact checking can't compete with the media machine pummeling their propaganda into the minds of voters day after day after day. 90% of what I did was correct misconceptions the general public had of Ron, even on primary night. It's doubly effective with older voters who ONLY get their information from old tv and newspaper media.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That poll was an outlier but, more importantly, candidates are going to be scrutinized and attacked - and the better they're doing in polls, the more that is going to happen.

If anything, Paul was the least attacked candidate in the primary, mostly because he wasn't a serious contender for nomination. I mean, was there a single anti-Paul tv ad? There were tons of negative ads attacking Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, but was Paul ever attacked by anyone?

Are you serious?!! The media was running a non-stop negative ad, misconstruing everything that Ron Paul has said and believes in!

Sure, if there was no negative scrutiny of Paul he'd get a better result. That's trivial. It's a nonsensical, unrealistic, scenery though.

I totally get that. I agree that it's good to expose the ideas. I think that's the only reason Ron Paul ran in the first place. Mind you, I'm not talking about the long-term viability of his ideas or passing judgement on them.

Viability? If they were good enough for our Founding Fathers, they're probably pretty damn viable. Ya think?

I'm stating that if it was Paul debating Obama, the moment he'd explain that his plan for Medicare, SS and Medicaid is a phasing-out, he'd lose the debate. Not an intellectual level - I agree with Paul on these issues - but in regards to popular support.

I do agree with you about this, unless the good doctor got one hell of a lot better in explaining how it would benefit them, personally. I would never count the good doctor out though. He touched people in ways others cannot. And when he was really "on", no one could beat him.

 

[acptulsa]

All our fact checking can't compete with the media machine pummeling their propaganda into the minds of voters day after day after day. 90% of what I did was correct misconceptions the general public had of Ron, even on primary night. It's doubly effective with older voters who ONLY get their information from old tv and newspaper media.

Yeah, I remember. That's why I keep telling Republicans we'd be in the lead right now. We took care of all of that crap. We spent six years taking care of all of that crap. He was the best-vetted candidate in the history of the American Presidency.

We'd be winning with that guy. Kickin' Obammey Ass.

Are you serious?!!

Left me at a loss for words. Well, not really, but SA didn't like the ones I came up with.

 

[Expatriate]

If anything, Paul was the least attacked candidate in the primary, mostly because he wasn't a serious contender for nomination. I mean, was there a single anti-Paul tv ad? There were tons of negative ads attacking Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, but was Paul ever attacked by anyone?

Are you freaking kidding me?

How many other candidates were smeared mercilessly and lied about by the media networks themselves? That is far, FAR more damaging than any attack ads.

What about Jon Huntsman's poorly-disguised, immoral hit job on Paul that the media gleefully played along with? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuVhadbMvQo&feature=related

And you say there were no paid attack ads? I distinctly remember a number of them, and I found this one in about a second by searching "Anti Ron Paul Commercial": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8mZL571J8

 

[acptulsa]

Are you freaking kidding me?

They say the winners write the history books.

I guess he thinks DeMint won the nomination...

 

[sailingaway]

You have a higher opinion of the intelligence of the average voter than I.

You personally don't like Ron's approach as much and like seeing approaches you like better, imho.

 

[Jamesiv1]

And when he was really "on", no one could beat him.

^^This

I've only been on board since last December, but I've watched a *bunch* of videos, and sadly I only remember 3 maybe 4 times where Ron was really "on". But man, oh man it lights a fire in my belly. It always seems to happen when he gets pissed off. His brow furrows, eyes turn steely... He becomes laser-focused dropping atom bombs of truth without any of the hem-haw, talk-too-long, hesitation-type stuff.

No one can touch him when he's like that.

 

[acptulsa]

No one can touch him when he's like that.

If Ron Paul was the nominee, we would so be thumping Obama right now.

Independents would be lining up down the block for yard signs.

 

[PierzStyx]

It would definitely have been a DIFFERENT debate with each candidate espousing different agendas, goals, and solutions. It would have been a REAL debate.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

You personally don't like Ron's approach as much and like seeing approaches you like better, imho.

I love Ron's approach to bring our people in from political Siberia and work within the GOP. Seen more progress in the last four years than I have in my lifetime. Ron was a wake up call that things could be different. He was the spark that lit the fuse. Now its time to run candidates savvy enough to turn the game of politics against our enemies. They will lay the groundwork so the next Ron Paul type figure isn't hidden away for 30 years, but rather heralded to the forefront.

 

[KingNothing]

I doubt Paul would have beaten Obama as bad as Romney did. Mitt had no problem lying, and he had no problem tossing aside all small-government principles to cut off Obama's appeals to emotion and attempts at class warfare. Ron would have focused on the philosophy of libertarianism, and Obama probably would have been able to make him seem more callous and uncaring than he actually is, which would have created an entirely different tone and narrative throughout the debate.

 

[KingNothing]

If Ron Paul was the nominee, we would so be thumping Obama right now.

Independents would be lining up down the block for yard signs.

I think this is true, and all of the campaign rhetoric would be different. Anti-war and anti-intervention narratives would be the theme from the Right, Obama would be on the defensive, and the America-first, populist sentiment would be behind Ron.

The debate would have been entirely different than it was. To their credit, Obama and Romney went into further detail than most debaters -including Ron- go into. If our guy were there, this probably wouldn't have happened. He'd have related this issues near and dear to his heart to the economy and jobs. Everything would have been linked to that. It would have been an interesting debate.

 

[KingNothing]

Obama's trillion for ads of course would have dominated, but in the debate Ron would have just called out demagoguing as it occured, just as he did with Chris Matthews

People who care about these issues wouldn't see it as demagoguing. Pointing out reality to them wouldn't necessarily be effective. What Ron does have is a sincere empathy for human beings, though. That empathy would allow him to connect our nation's current failed policies to the struggles that people are enduring. Really, I think Paul would have to counter the Left's demagoguing with his own compassion/passion (which could seem like demagoguing) to win voters.