Haha From DP: Ben Swann (Reality Check) willing to moderate a debate for grown-ups

[tfurrh]

http://www.dailypaul.com/190783/ben-swann-willing-to-moderate-rival-debate-for-grown-ups

Ben Swann wants to moderate a debate with Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, & John Huntsman as an alternative to the Trump debate.

[lucent]

Why would Ron Paul go to a debate with either of them?

[bluesc]

Reddit was pushing a Johnson/Huntsman/Paul debate. They can fund it easily. C-SPAN would most likely air it. Would the campaign want this though? Unlikely. Also pretty sure Johnson dropped out.

[lucent]

Punching down is by every definition bad politics

[tfurrh]

Punching down is by every definition bad politics

I think it would give them all an opportunity to punch up at the contestants not present....while on national TV.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Why does it have to be a debate? Make it a reasonable discussion between intelligent people sitting around a table. Like the Charlie Rose show without Charlie Rose.

[undergroundrr]

Why does it have to be a debate? Make it a reasonable discussion between intelligent people sitting around a table. Like the Charlie Rose show without Charlie Rose.

Whether or not it's good campaign strategy for Ron Paul 2012, I desperately want to have the opportunity to watch such a thing. With Huntsman taking on the uncomfortable role as the extreme neocon, it would be a great introduction to a whole different political spectrum for the average viewer. And I have a feeling discussion would be civil and illuminating.

[AlexG]

Why does it have to be a debate? Make it a reasonable discussion between intelligent people sitting around a table. Like the Charlie Rose show without Charlie Rose.

I like this. Just a discussion with Huntsman and Paul. I can just imagine how calm and respectful it would be compared the Trump freakshow

[PastaRocket848]

i'd make it an anti-debate. just let them sit around and discuss issues, no moderator, no bells, no glitz and glam. just smart guy and substantive issues. hunstman would be down for it.

[tfurrh]

I wonder if they announced that it would be held on the same day, if it would draw a few more candidates away from the Trump debate.

[Student Of Paulism]

Why does it have to be a debate? Make it a reasonable discussion between intelligent people sitting around a table. Like the Charlie Rose show without Charlie Rose.

Yea, that is pretty much exactly what it would be with those 3, since a lot of their beliefs are the same. It doesn't make sense to have a debate with people who have too much of the same opinions as you, so this wouldn't be much of a debate. The point is to go at it with someone you have more disagreements with. I am all for a one on one with Newt, as that would definitely get a huge spotlight, especially now with all that Trump bs going on. Lol you guys know that would be classic and well worth seeing. Gloves would totally be off. I think the campaign team should definitely push for that, but they best be well prepared for it ahead of time. Going up against that bastard can backfire if not approached properly.

[ghengis86]

Ron Paul doesn't punch down; opponents faces fly upwards into his fists.

[JK/SEA]

Judge Nap, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman Daniel Hanan, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers.

Call it the ''emergency summit talks 2011-2012''

[bronxboy10]

I wonder if they announced that it would be held on the same day, if it would draw a few more away from the Trump debate.

I know a lot of people who "vote" with their remotes ;)