Could you imagine a Ron Paul v. Hillary Clinton debate?
He would smash her like a HS team against the Patriots.
That would be awesome!!!!!
2007-11-19 02:40:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by idontknow 3
·
6⤊
3⤋
Hillary has a high negative ranking. If you heard the debates you know that even her Democratic opponents acknowledge this. Rudy Giuliani can become president if the "anyone but Hillary" vote turns out in force. That is assuming both are their parties' nominees. I like Ron Paul, but am afraid he doesn't quite have the support in a cluttered Republican field. I will be one of the against Hillary voters if it comes down to her and Giuliani. Don't underestimate Giuliani; George W. Bush won 2 elections because he was underestimated.
2007-11-19 13:16:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Whoever gets the Rep nomination has an excellent chance of winning, especially if Hillary gets the nod for the Dems. Hillary is a seriuosly flawed candidate, with an already over 50% negative nationwide. If the Dems want to regain the White House, they need to find a candidate. Hillary, Obama , and Edwards, are not the answer.
2007-11-19 10:45:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by booman17 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
Many people did not appreciate Rudy when he was running for mayor of New York, but more people voted for him. Many people criticized his actions as mayor of New York, but NY flourished under his leadership and more people supported his policies.
Now people are saying what chance does Rudy G have against Hillary. If people were to truly analyze Hillary and her politics, then we would safely avoid her presidency.
The instant gratification gene which currently dominates the American public will be the downfall of us all. Hillary is very politically savvy and will play to the public wants. Unfortunately Rudy and even more so Ron will play more to the public's needs. The answer is no. It's no again for Ron. The only unless is ... the American public raises its voting age above 13 and voting IQ about 97.
2007-11-19 10:53:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mike 1
·
2⤊
4⤋
Mr. "I was there at 9/11" doesn't have a chance against Hillary. She will have him for lunch just like she did her opponents at the recent debate. As for Ron Paul, he's got even less of a chance. He's not a real Republican. All you Ron Paul fans should just come out of the closet. You aren't Republicans, you are Libertarians.
2007-11-19 11:59:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
Giuliani is what is known in politics as "an empty suit". Aside from his photo ops in new york, which gave him a brief respite from the loathing most New Yorkers felt for him, he really has nothing to say and not much going on in his head. Having recently teamed up with Pat Robertson shows, I think, the level of his desperation.
As for Ron Paul being smarter than Hillary Clinton, that has to be some kind of joke, right? I mean Ron Paul says the most outrageous things as you might hear in an argument in a bar. The very idea of leaving the UN and NATO in a world of global terrorism does not strike me as the musings of an intelligent individual.
Hillary is not a terribly pleasant person, but she's very smart and I'm rather tired of having a dummy in the White House, aren't you? It's not good for the country. I'd take ANY smart candidate of either party that had high intelligence and some ability and vision to re-install bi-partisan cooperation in Congress.
2007-11-19 10:47:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
6⤋
No not at all, If Senator Clinton is the democratic nominee, she will beat him by a landslide. But I prefer Congressman Paul over both of them.
EDIT: Joe T, Global terrorism? And what exactly has the UN and NATO, done in order to prevent these threats?
After the last few years have these organizations addressed the root of the problem? Has the threat of “global terrorism” lessened with their involvement?
the UN? Wasn’t this the same organization that caused us to enter war with Iraq in the first place? Iraq defied the UN resolutions..
How can people not recognize how flawed this organization is?
“There has been criticism of the Security Council, e.g. for being unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis.”
“The UN has been accused of ignoring the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa”
(source Wiki)
"To date, Congress has attempted to curb the abuse of power of the United Nations by urging the United Nations to reform itself, threatening the nonpayment of assessments and dues allegedly owed by the United States and thereby cutting off the United Nations' major source of funds. America's problems with the United Nations will not, however, be solved by such reform measures. The threat posed by the United Nations to the sovereignty of the United States and independence is not that the United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and irresponsible international bureaucracy. Rather, the threat arises from the United Nation's Charter which--from the beginning--was a threat to sovereignty protections in the U.S. Constitution. The American people have not, however, approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, by its nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never `made under the Authority of the U.S.,' as required by Article VI."
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.p...
why would we continue our involvement in an organization that has only perpetuated our problems? .. and let it tax our citizens? Our founding fathers specifically warned us about foreign entanglements, and the UN is the biggest foreign entanglement that I can imagine. And let’s not forget that Reagan ended the cold war by calling Gorbachev up DIRECTLY, as these issues should be handled..
*After 9/11 Paul voted in favor of invading Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden.. He also supports the Letter's of Marquee and Reprisal to counter terrorism.. “The issue of Marquee and Reprisal was raised before Congress by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and again on July 21, 2007. Paul, defining the attacks as an act of "air piracy," introduced the Marquee and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted the president the authority to use Letters of Marquee and Reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state."
""Once letters of marquee and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man..." (from Wikipedia)
Aside from this Paul advocates strengthening national intelligence to prevent future attacks.. his method is actually effective
If you’re going to criticize someone for their policies, at least know what they are and the reasoning behind why they take their position.
2007-11-19 12:11:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
Do We really to send a man who dresses like a woman, kisses Donald Trump on the lips, and is the ire of the NYC firefighters? Rudy has three words in his sentences: a noun, a verb, and 911. Is tha all we have for President? come on.
2007-11-19 11:02:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Paul K 3
·
5⤊
3⤋
Well, I personally don't care for Giuliani, but if it came down to he vs. Clinton, I'd have to give him my vote. I'll certainly give my support to someone else in the primaries... I think its still wide open, its anyone's game right now.
2007-11-19 10:42:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by steddy voter 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
Rudy acts like a little kid in a candy store. Paul is a much better choice.
2007-11-19 10:47:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by PATRICIA MS 6
·
6⤊
3⤋