TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
Dr. Paul is not fat like Newt
You Tubes please?
2&2 trying to convince himself that Obama is both dumb and a poor speaker on his feet is one of the more curious attempts I've seen on this board. He's neither. In fact, he's very good in both categories, and those two things are why he managed to beat a massive favorite in Hilary Clinton, then basically walk over McCain. The idea that Obama can't stand toe to toe with a guy like Newt Gingrich and sell his viewpoint is crazy. That's the guy Obama wants to face.
Anyone thinking Obama would get worked over by Gingrich hasn't been paying attention to how good Obama is at debate, and at selling his campaign message. He's excellent at staying on course. Obama never gets perturbed, which is his greatest asset in debating, and he always has a good command of his talking points. Go watch his debates again. He's fantastic at verbal sparring. Meanwhile, Gingrich, while intelligent, is quick to anger and will say just about anything when roused. Obama might be the perfect foil to exploit that.
And that's not the whole of it. The character juxtaposition would be glaring and omnipresent during any debate. The body language, patience, and demeanor juxtaposition would be overwhelmingly in Obama's favor. Watching Gingrich get more and more worked up next to an unflappable Obama would be bad for the GOP.
I doubt Gingrich's camp would even want to have their guy physically standing next to Obama for more than ten seconds at a time. The image would be bad for Gingrich--a tall, young, fit, semi-handsome, sardonically smiling Obama beside a red-faced, stumpy, fat, scowling, old man Gingrich. As silly as it is, these things matter in a presidential debate. McCain looked a thousand years old when he was debating Obama. Gingrich will look like he's one breath short of a heart attack. And since neither guy is going to go out there and flounder, these impressions would be more important than you might think.
None of the above applies to Romney, which is why Obama would prefer anyone else. It applies double to Ron Paul (minus the character issues).
Dr. Paul is not fat like Newt
People have seen for the last 3 years that he is dumb, we don't need any additional evidence of that. So, he just needs someone to ask him questions for which he doesn't have canned answers.
As with any debate featuring a controversial person, your opinion of him going in is going to determine your opinion on how he performs. I think the guy is as substantively dumb as a rock, so unless he changes the content of his answers then I am going to say he sucked and was just blowing hot air. For someone who slurps his nuts, Obama can spew the same empty BS that he has since he came onto the national scene and his supporters will praise his glory.
To me that's just you not liking Obama, not a cogent analysis of Obama as a public speaker or debater. I don't think nearly anyone on either side of the aisle shares your opinion that Obama is dumb.
Because he's the only one on the board who ever agrees with you?
Its not just that 2&2 dislikes the President. He blindly hates him. To put it in board terms, Obama is to 2&@ as Bush is to bkf/rj. And he has even less ammunition to work with than bkf and rj do.
Its not just that 2&2 dislikes the President. He blindly hates him. To put it in board terms, Obama is to 2&@ as Bush is to bkf/rj. And he has even less ammunition to work with than bkf and rj do.
To me that's just you not liking Obama, not a cogent analysis of Obama as a public speaker or debater. I don't think nearly anyone on either side of the aisle shares your opinion that Obama is dumb.
2&2, do you think you're smarter than Obama?
I think his content sucks and panders to the general stupidity of the American public. When I am evaluating someone in a debate setting, I am evaluating their content, not their delivery. The objective of the delivery is to convince the listener of the content. He can slide it out there like Jimmy Swaggart or fumble it out there like Stuttering John, but if the content sucks then my opinion is that he sucks. It is his job as a debater to make it appear as if the content does not suck, and he has never done that for me. He has never once convinced me that any of his proposals make sense in one of his speeches or debates (other than Osama after the fact).
2&2, do you think you're smarter than Obama?