What Would Ron Paul Actually DO?

[dross]

So we elect Ron Paul. What will he actually do if he becomes President? Please don't say things like, "Overhaul Social Security," because he can't. That takes congress. So if you say, "Introduce a bill to overhaul SS," fine. Please stay within reality. I'd like to see what you guys think will be the actual practical effect of a Ron Paul presidency. Specifics, please.

 

[eldirector]

In reality? Gum up the whole works. Neither the left or the right would go for anything he introduced, nor would he sign off on anything either of them introduced.

Actually, that sounds pretty good right now.

 

[Expat]

Changes would likely be marginal. he would have to at some point approve a budget that the Congress presented to him. At times when questioned, he shows himself to be fairly pragmatic unlike most of his supporters. He often tempers his positions, with comments on it would take some time to get there, etc. He would likely make some good SCOTUS appointments if he got the opportunity, but you never know. He would have to appoint people that could get through the Senate. Really the question would be, if he got elected, would he have sufficient support of the American people that he could appeal to them over the head of the Congress to get them to put pressure on their Senators and Congressman.

 

[dross]

Changes would likely be marginal. he would have to at some point approve a budget that the Congress presented to him. At times when questioned, he shows himself to be fairly pragmatic unlike most of his supporters. He often tempers his positions, with comments on it would take some time to get there, etc. He would likely make some good SCOTUS appointments if he got the opportunity, but you never know. He would have to appoint people that could get through the Senate. Really the question would be, if he got elected, would he have sufficient support of the American people that he could appeal to them over the head of the Congress to get them to put pressure on their Senators and Congressman.

I agree with a lot of this. I'm trying to get some of the strong supporters to explore what they actually think he'll do. Like for instance, "Rescind the following executive orders: xxxx, or something like that.

 

[88GT]

In reality? Gum up the whole works. Neither the left or the right would go for anything he introduced, nor would he sign off on anything either of them introduced.

Actually, that sounds pretty good right now.

But I thought the whole purpose of Paul and no other was to make drastic sweeping changes to America's way of doing things so we didn't fall off the end of the earth?

Isn't the whole argument for Paul predicated on the premise that things have to CHANGE, and change now? Even if nothing is added to the garbage pile, the status quo as it stands today still exists in a form that will eventually bankrupt us. If Paul can't change that, what's the point?

I'm not being sarcastic or snarky.

 

[jgreiner]

So we elect Ron Paul. What will he actually do if he becomes President? Please don't say things like, "Overhaul Social Security," because he can't. That takes congress. So if you say, "Introduce a bill to overhaul SS," fine. Please stay within reality. I'd like to see what you guys think will be the actual practical effect of a Ron Paul presidency. Specifics, please.

he could close the EPA down. And BATFE. And Dept of Ed.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The man is what, 77?

Shouldn't the question be "What would his VP do?"

 

[rambone]

There are many positive things that could be done without much cooperation from Congress. This is some of what I want to see, off the top of my head.

• Bring the troops home.
• Take America out of the National State of Emergency that we've been continuously in for the last 10 years.
• Remove unconstitutional Executive Orders that remain on the books.
• Audit Fort Knox and see if anything remains.
• Quit renewing Patriot Act provisions.
• Veto all abominations that come out of Congress.
• Stop filling appointing a bunch of globalists from the CFR to powerful positions.
• Reaffirm American sovereignty in regards to the U.N. & NATO.
• Replace Bernanke with someone who will stop printing FRNs.
• Cut whatever discretionary spending he has control over.
• Make sure agencies aren't headed up by scumbags.
• Pick good Supreme Court justices.
• Stop instigating World War 3.

Then try to get Congress to do something that is actually in the interest of liberty for once.

Now why is this specific to Paul? This thread should be about any candidate who promises fantastic things like repealing Obamacare and revamping the entire tax structure of the Federal Government. Maybe these candidates need to be reminded of their Presidential limitations too. What do ya think guys?

 

[Zoub]

So we elect Ron Paul.

I am trying to imagine that first. The environment in which he could even get elected and would be functioning in after being elected. He would use the hell out of Executive orders and face impeachment at some point. I think he would be alone, like going a bridge too far.

Who in Congress is he friends with now? What circles does he run in now? To whom does he owe favors?

He would spook the Fed big time and be the worst nightmare of many agencies.

 

[rambone]

Isn't the whole argument for Paul predicated on the premise that things have to CHANGE, and change now? Even if nothing is added to the garbage pile, the status quo as it stands today still exists in a form that will eventually bankrupt us. If Paul can't change that, what's the point?

Things do have to change. One libertarian president can't undo 100 years of statism by himself. It will take Ron Paul AND a mass awakening of the American people. If the people resist their last chance at liberty, then our fates are sealed no matter who is elected.

But if that is our destiny, then let it not be said that we sat by and did nothing to stop it.

 

[rambone]

He would use the hell out of Executive orders and face impeachment at some point.

He's spoken and written at length against that. He knows that E.O.'s have their place but has been vocal against abusing that power.

 

[dross]

he could close the EPA down. And BATFE. And Dept of Ed.

How?

 

[jsgolfman]

There are many positive things that could be done without much cooperation from Congress. This is some of what I want to see, off the top of my head.

• Bring the troops home.
• Take America out of the National State of Emergency that we've been continuously in for the last 10 years.
• Remove unconstitutional Executive Orders that remain on the books.
• Audit Fort Knox and see if anything remains.
• Quit renewing Patriot Act provisions.
• Veto all abominations that come out of Congress.
• Stop filling appointing a bunch of globalists from the CFR to powerful positions.
• Reaffirm American sovereignty in regards to the U.N. & NATO.
• Replace Bernanke with someone who will stop printing FRNs.
• Cut whatever discretionary spending he has control over.
• Make sure agencies aren't headed up by scumbags.
• Pick good Supreme Court justices.
• Stop instigating World War 3.

Then try to get Congress to do something that is actually in the interest of liberty for once.

Now why is this specific to Paul? This thread should be about any candidate who promises fantastic things like repealing Obamacare and revamping the entire tax structure of the Federal Government. Maybe these candidates need to be reminded of their Presidential limitations too. What do ya think guys?

Nice list, mine was more generic.
1. Through the power of executive orders, he can eliminate entire departments/bureaus or at the very least fundamentally alter the way in which they operate (to the benefit of the citizens).
2. He has the power to prepare the budget, though congress has to approve it, thereby setting the scope for the conversation and defining the ceiling, per se.
3. As Commander in Chief troop deployment falls within his duties and I don't think I need to restate how he thinks about troop deployment.
4. Legislatively, he can veto unnecessary or unconstitutional bills presented to him. Yes, congress can override the veto with a 2/3 vote, but this doesn't often happen and would provide opportunity for further discussion by the state and the people.
5. The powers of appointment are numerous including several cabinet level positions, judges, etc. In total, he has the power to select several hundred thousand individuals who share his views.
6. Appointment of ambassadors, consuls, treaty negotiation. Use of these powers would enable him to influence foreign policy abroad, trade policy, etc.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

In addition to jgreiner's, rambone's, & jsgolfman's points; let us not forget the bully pulpit itself...shown in 2008 to be worth $1.3 Billion Dollars. I find it ridiculous for you to assert the powerlessness of the position when so much money is spent attempting to win it.

 

[dross]

There are many positive things that could be done without much cooperation from Congress. This is some of what I want to see, off the top of my head.

• Bring the troops home.
• Take America out of the National State of Emergency that we've been continuously in for the last 10 years.
• Remove unconstitutional Executive Orders that remain on the books.
• Audit Fort Knox and see if anything remains.
• Quit renewing Patriot Act provisions.
• Veto all abominations that come out of Congress.
• Stop filling appointing a bunch of globalists from the CFR to powerful positions.
• Reaffirm American sovereignty in regards to the U.N. & NATO.
• Replace Bernanke with someone who will stop printing FRNs.
• Cut whatever discretionary spending he has control over.
• Make sure agencies aren't headed up by scumbags.
• Pick good Supreme Court justices.
• Stop instigating World War 3.

Then try to get Congress to do something that is actually in the interest of liberty for once.

Now why is this specific to Paul? This thread should be about any candidate who promises fantastic things like repealing Obamacare and revamping the entire tax structure of the Federal Government. Maybe these candidates need to be reminded of their Presidential limitations too. What do ya think guys?

You have some good ones there. He can veto unless he loses enough popularity that he gets overridden. He can pick Justices, but if he picks libertarian ones, they won't get through. Bush actually had several very good judge appointees for lower courts that you would have actually liked even, and they were held up and then compromised away without Bush being able to do anything about it. Justices are one of the most important thing the President does, but he doesn't get to decide alone.

It's specific to Paul because his supporters' dogma is so uncompromising, and politics is a game of compromise.

What if he compromised on a lesser thing in order to make a greater thing happen? Would that be acceptable?

 

[Denny347]

Electing Ron Paul might send a signal to both parties that they need to re-think their positions less they lose seats in Congress. It could give a boost to those politicians seeking Congressional seats. Electing him would be a HUGE signal that the status quo is no longer acceptable.

 

[teddy12b]

What if he compromised on a lesser thing in order to make a greater thing happen? Would that be acceptable?

We can argue about compromisign all day long. Who's done it and for what reason. The bottom line with RP is that he has stuck to his guns for his career with very few changes in how he votes. The worst that people can come up with is that years ago he voted for term limits and after it didn't pass he ran again. That's the extent of his inconsistency, and people call him a hypocrit because of it. That's the worst thing on his record for compromise or going soft and people try to act like it's a Clinton sex scandle.

I believe RP would bring the troops home, end the wars, and not start any new ones unless he absolutely had to. I also think he'd get to work on cutting every federal agency that he could and force the states to take care of themselves. I also think he'd get to work on the federal reserve and getting a full audit. In that order.

 

[rambone]

What if he compromised on a lesser thing in order to make a greater thing happen? Would that be acceptable?

It would entirely depend on what that was. It is not acceptable to bargain away essential liberties. Some candidates' threshold for compromise is much lower than others.

 

[jbombelli]

Personally, I think Ron Paul would veto a lot of crap, and those vetoes would be overridden, and he would propose a lot of bills that would be ignored. Congress, in an amazing display of bipartisan cooperation, would make him the least effective, most marginalized president in the history of this country.

Not to mention the inevitable and constant media blitz about how "stupid" he is, full of congressional quotes.

 

[teddy12b]

I think it's kind of sad that the question gets asked in what seems like a tone of "what would he do?", as though if our president isn't out there "F-ing" up the economy with another bailout or healthcare program or starting a new war that he's not actually doing anything. There's plenty for RP to work on with domestic problems that he should have a very interesting first year.

My biggest fear and I've said this again is that he's going to have an "accident" before winning the election or taking office. The last president who talked about getting rid of the fed was JFK and conspiracy theorists can speculate about how that worked out for him.