Poll Question: Who would win presidential debate, Ron Paul, or Hillary?

Assuming you good people got Dr. Paul on the presidential ballot for 2008 (I.E. you registered as a Repub. prior to your states' deadline), and he was a leading contender for Repub. presidential candidate, and were to debate hillary on any and all topics, who do you think would win?
To the mods:
As this is a Poll, could we overlook the the 2 line rule for some replies?
Thanks....

As far as actually making that happen ( getting Dr. Paul on the presidential ballot for 2008 --I.E. registering as a Repub. prior to your states' deadline, and voting for him in your states Primary [re-register later if you wish] )
Go here to see your state's deadline
www.ronpaul2008.com...

Further questions to consider:

Who is more believable? Who would win?

Would the debates be honest? (not skewed to favor either candidate)

Would hillary even show up?

I'd personally vote for Paul, but Hillary would win. Just a gut feeling that if Hillary was the Dem's nominee, she'd win. People would have that extra incentive to vote because well, that'd be history.

reply to post by ChrisJr03


Are you saying that hillary is more qualified to debate the issues than Ron Paul? Or that she is more believable ?
Based on what I've seen of the repub debates, my guess is that if she even took on the challange (not) he would make a fool of her, or at least show how disingenuous she is.
I would think her cred factor would take a nose dive afterward.
Just m.o.

It all depends on who would be crowning the winner. If this was done on mainstream media, public debate, I would bet money that every single major media outlet would deem Hillary the winner, regardless of the content of her answers.

Hillary would give the PC / Political answers that she has been paid to give. Paul would be more likely to give actual, honest answers. In my personal opinion, Paul would be the winner to me. But, the media would deem Hillary the winner and for the millions and millions that didn't actually watch the debate, that would be all that matters.

There is absolutely no candidate that can debate with Ron Paul.
He would destroy anybody in a publich speech or debate.

Look how good he's doing, he was at 5.5 few hrs ago, 6.5 40minutes ago and 6.8Million now.

If Bill O'Reilly can decimate RP, Hillary (as big of a crook as she is) can do so as well.

www.peopleforchange.net...

RP=solidly debunked, but this is ATS and people will still cling to him no matter what. Doesn't it bother you guys how much you worship him?

You have my permission to totally flame me.

Men and women who are are righteous in thought and pure in speech never falter!


It has to happen. I'm leaving the country and I'm coming back to vote in the primary. Dedication and persistence is what we owe our beautiful country!

[edit on 5-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I'll ask again. Does it bother *any* of y'all the level of devotion you give this man? It's downright quasi-religious!

Originally posted by totalvigilance
If Bill O'Reilly can decimate RP, Hillary (as big of a crook as she is) can do so as well.

www.peopleforchange.net...

RP=solidly debunked, but this is ATS and people will still cling to him no matter what. Doesn't it bother you guys how much you worship him?

You have my permission to totally flame me.

Okie Dokie!!!

If you are easily swayed by opinionated blogs with all of 2 comments from 2006 then,yes, you are absolutely right Dr. Paul has been solidly debunked.

If Ron Paul was "debunkable"(whatever that means by the way) the mindless mass media wouldnt be ignoring him, they would be shredding him. I am sure that there is some dirt that will eventually come to light but compared to Hillary's rise to the top on stairs made of corpses... well you know what I mean, right?

Ron Paul!

He is the only one that cant be attacked on his voting record. He dose what he says he is going to do! He expresses his views very well and speaks about what is right for America. Clinton would have no chance head to head with Ron Paul!

Originally posted by totalvigilance
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

 

I'll ask again. Does it bother *any* of y'all the level of devotion you give this man? It's downright quasi-religious!

Stating that the media has a bias for Hillary over RP, is a quasi-religious devotion? I would say that your blatant dislike of him is a bit over the top. You haven't posted anything that would sway anyone into not liking the guy, other than insulting people for supporting him. So why should anyone listen to you?

reply to post by SEEWHATUDO

Yay for bandwagon appeals! "Urg, this blog doesn't have many comments, so it must be wrong, I don't have to address its substantive arguments." Furthermore, has RP significantly changed his positions since 2006? My money says no.

Alright, I admit Hillary is downright evil, a crook, so on and so forth, but at least she doesn't support extreme reactionary viewpoints that could plunge the country into chaos. I would rather have a crook in office who's gonna skim a couple billion off the top rather than a misguided ideologue who's going to wreck the works.

Once again, you have my permission to flame on.

reply to post by Karlhungis


Why are you replying to my reply to someone else?

reply to post by totalvigilance


I was not aware that it was against the rules. Thanks for keeping me in check.

reply to post by Karlhungis


I don't think it's exactly against the rules, but I also don't think it makes the most sense...if you do, however, want to address a point I made that was not directed toward any one specific individual, that would be fine.

Originally posted by totalvigilance

Furthermore, has RP significantly changed his positions since 2006? My money says no.

This is exactly what we admire about Dr. Paul. Not the lies you are apparently quite used to hearing. Actually, since about 1988. Not 2006.

Alright, I admit Hillary is downright evil, a crook, so on and so forth, but at least she doesn't support extreme reactionary viewpoints that could plunge the country into chaos.

Well. It's good to hear that you "admit Hillary is downright evil, a crook"... etc.


But, please explain how the Constitution contains "extreme reactionary viewpoints"?
Especially in view of the "Rule By Fiat" that Queen Hillbillary espouses.
Are you saying that a return to the kind of principles outlined in the Constitution are "extreme reactionary viewpoints" ?
Au contraire, mon amie.

I would say that the Rule By Fiat that Queen Hillbillary has already shown a propensity for ( can you say secret Nationalized Healthcare meetings in violation of the Sunshine Laws by an Attorney?) is far more extreme and reactionary than a return to the Constitution. I would also say she is a felon.

I would rather have a crook in office who's gonna skim a couple billion off the top rather than a misguided ideologue who's going to wreck the works.

America’s revolutionaries Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, et al, also kind of "wrecked the works" don't you think?
Sounds a bit like you like the status quo (Fiat rule, Big gov intrusiveness, totalitarianism, shrinking liberties, 1984 scenario, etc ) and more politicians like hillbillary. All quite acceptable to you, no?

You've come to the right place, my friend...

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Men and women who are are righteous in thought and pure in speech never falter!


It has to happen. I'm leaving the country and I'm coming back to vote in the primary. Dedication and persistence is what we owe our beautiful country!

[edit on 5-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

Let me be the first to say:
Thank you.
For making the effort. At least it was a beautiful country at one time.
We need many more to make it so again...

reply to post by totalvigilance


Better him than I. I'm a little more volatile when it comes to discussion...

It is our duty as American citizens to dedicate ourselves to the noble cause of men and women trying to make a change for our country, regardless of who they are. I analyze every aspect of an issue before I support it, and it took me three months to do the same with Ron Paul. I was convinced after only a short period of time, but it is my thought that every politician has a few skeletons in his closet. I looked and looked, and this man has none. I researched the majority of candidates for both sides and their dishonesty and inconsitency only rivaled that of Ron Paul's honesty and integrity. My choice thereafter was an obvious one.

He is the only candidate that I feel represents the true nature of our country. He's proved himself to be open, honest, and consistent in his beliefs and voting record. We don't agree on every single topic, but he's the greatest catalyst for positive reform and direction for our country.

Ron Paul 2008! Ride or die!

[edit on 6-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

You have my permission to totally flame me.

I don't really see where we need his permission to flame assinine comments. It will certainly happen naturally.

If Ron Paul was "debunkable"(whatever that means by the way) the mindless mass media wouldnt be ignoring him, they would be shredding him.

Agreed. They seem to have two tactics. Ignore, or shred. He is too smart to shred, and now, officially too much of a force in the cash raising arena to ignore. So this leaves them little choice but to belittle, and marginalize him.
They do have nice cozy little predetrmined outcomes they like to engineer, and Dr. Paul is not playing along. They will begin their standard muck raking soon, if he doesn't do as they'd like, and go away.
You've got to admire that...

reply to post by Alexander the o.k.



Ron Paul is definitely the baby steps to restoration. At least restoring our rights as citizens. That's a start..