What Would Ron Paul Actually DO?

[sepe]

Every Ron Paul thread on every internet forum is the same.



RON PAUL IS. THE MESSIAH!!!!

RON PAUL IS. THE DEVIL!!!!

YOU'RE STUPID - RON PAUL WILL FIX EVERYTHING!!!!

NO, YOU'RE STUPID AND SO IS RON PAUL!!!!

That is awesome because it is so true....Ron Paul is the Messiah and the Devil and he'll fix everything and everyone is stupid!!!

 

[Smokepole]

Sadly this is probably the most likely scenario.

I am a Ron Paul supporter however I firmly believe that if he was elected and actually tried to make the changes he proposes he would be assasinated within the same year.

I don't think so. Congress would just not pass anything that he or his followers wanted. Congress just doesn't have to give him anything he wants. And he would be gone in 4 yrs.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebishopp
Sadly this is probably the most likely scenario.

I am a Ron Paul supporter however I firmly believe that if he was elected and actually tried to make the changes he proposes he would be assasinated within the same year.

I don't think so. Congress would just not pass anything that he or his followers wanted. Congress just doesn't have to give him anything he wants. And he would be gone in 4 yrs.

I don't believe Ron Paul has enough support to be elected. If he were elected, I don't believe he has the personality to garner enough public opinion to enable him to overrule an unfriendly Congress. I doubt any inside-the-US sources would seek to assassinate him; doing so would help his cause rather than hurt it and make it easier for an ideologic successor to push his program.

 

[Zoub]

Personally, I prefer his son, Rand. I think he explains more succinctly and gets his points across with more conviction. But then, I'm a libertarian geek, and what I like ain't what everyone else likes.

Have you guys ever thought of Star Trek as a political analogy?

McCoy represents the Democrats, Kirk the Republicans, and the Libertarian of course, is Spock. Checkov is the voters. Scotty is the taxpayers.

Uhuru is just hot.

Yeah and Vietnam too.

FYI I often went camping in the same place where Kirk fought and killed the Lizard King. The first MMA fight shwon on TV:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM[/ame]

 

[88GT]

Here you go Dross, in his own words:

the united voice of the freedom-loving Americans who voted me into office

PAUL: One year to go - Washington Times



Do not mistake this as my belief that he can accomplish 100% of his stated goals...but even 5% would be better than most of the alternatives, IMO.

Ron Paul has my vote in the primary & then hopefully in the general. If he's replaced in the general by Cain, Johnson, or even Huntsman, they'll probably get my vote over Obama. If Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum are on the ballot next November, I'm probably going to vote for Obama just to avoid the situation of them having the likely R® Senate & House majorities cheering their every move. Consider it as greasing the wheels of government with gravel. If the voters decide to put people into office who are pointing the bus in the wrong direction...I'd prefer a poorly running engine.

Okay, here's where I have trouble connecting the dots. 53% of Americans voted for the Kenyan the last go-round. Given that you and others are so fond of reminding us all that if we don't support Paul we necessarily support the fascist regime of the status quo, that's what? Another 20-40% of the population? Which leaves what? At best about a quarter of the population that are going to be "freedon-loving Americans" for electing and support Paul?

Respectfully, Americans don't love freedom.

You're obviously on the Crap-on-Ron-Paul wagon, so surely you have some idea who you think might be willing & able to fix the country & is popular enough to get it done...

Why is a legitimate criticism of Paul's platform or electability crapping on him? And why is criticism of Cain/Perry/Romney/whoever for the same reason just good discussion?

 

[rambone]

Okay, here's where I have trouble connecting the dots. 53% of Americans voted for the Kenyan the last go-round. Given that you and others are so fond of reminding us all that if we don't support Paul we necessarily support the fascist regime of the status quo, that's what? Another 20-40% of the population? Which leaves what? At best about a quarter of the population that are going to be "freedon-loving Americans" for electing and support Paul?

Respectfully, Americans don't love freedom.

A lot of people voted for Obama because he had the right stance on things like the wars, the Patriot Act, civil rights, etc.

Stacking him up against John McCain, who said he would gladly keep us in the Middle East for the next 100 years.... I can easily see why Obama won.

Elections are won and lost with a relatively small amount of swing voters. Respectfully, these swing voters don't love the Global War on Terror.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

I don't think so. Congress would just not pass anything that he or his followers wanted. Congress just doesn't have to give him anything he wants. And he would be gone in 4 yrs.

Couldnt Ron Paul then do what Obama is now doing, and declare "executive orders" or whatever its called and bypass congress? Or are there only certain things you can do this with?

 

[Expat]

Yeah and Vietnam too.

FYI I often went camping in the same place where Kirk fought and killed the Lizard King. The first MMA fight shwon on TV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM

 

[ben992]

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.

Unfortunately, this isn't really a conversation worth having. Not to even mentioon the Democrats, the Republicans would NEVER allow Ron Paul to get elected. He is a threat to their tyranny and their power. They hate Ron Paul, because Paul is a lover of liberty. It won't happen.

For all the good it will do, I am voting for him, but it matters little....once again it will be out with the old tyrant in with the new tyrant.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Grow up, Paco.

It's amazing to me that some of you folks, who sound so reasonable on other topics, seem to go bat-**** crazy on the topic of Ron Paul. Paco B. I've read enough of your posts to be surprised at your attitude/posts responding to Full-Auto, but maybe my memory is slipping; I never thought you were a Rambone clone before now.

Unfortunately there's no shortage of people with manners like Paco's running around Ron Paul threads online. They think they're doing Ron Paul favors by supporting him with thier boorish behavior. Ron Paul has a poor reputation online because of people like Paco. Paul should distance himself from his "Ronbots" and he might gain some favor by internet citizens... but he's probably unaware of the antics of people like Paco.

Can you guys explain to me how a guess & a question is an insult? Smells like red herring to me. And you've still not answered the question full-auto.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Unfortunately, this isn't really a conversation worth having. Not to even mentioon the Democrats, the Republicans would NEVER allow Ron Paul to get elected. He is a threat to their tyranny and their power. They hate Ron Paul, because Paul is a lover of liberty. It won't happen.

For all the good it will do, I am voting for him, but it matters little....once again it will be out with the old tyrant in with the new tyrant.

Yes, all Republicans hate liberty and those that love it.

Where did the neg rep button go?

 

[ben992]

Yes, all Republicans hate liberty and those that love it.

Where did the neg rep button go?

Ok, so saying all is a little over board, but saying most hate liberty would not be overboard. If you don't think so, you aren't paying attention to Washington. I.E. it was the great "conservative" George W. Bush that brought you Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

 

[88GT]

A lot of people voted for Obama because he had the right stance on things like the wars, the Patriot Act, civil rights, etc.

Stacking him up against John McCain, who said he would gladly keep us in the Middle East for the next 100 years.... I can easily see why Obama won.

Elections are won and lost with a relatively small amount of swing voters. Respectfully, these swing voters don't love the Global War on Terror.

Did YOU vote for Obama?

Ok, so saying all is a little over board, but saying most hate liberty would not be overboard. If you don't think so, you aren't paying attention to Washington. I.E. it was the great "conservative" George W. Bush that brought you Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

It would because it's the same kind of childish, emotive, exaggerated rhetoric the left likes to use. I't also logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ok, so saying all is a little over board, but saying most hate liberty would not be overboard. If you don't think so, you aren't paying attention to Washington. I.E. it was the great "conservative" George W. Bush that brought you Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

It's a lot over the top, not a little overboard.

Bush was a moderate, not a conservative.

 

[rambone]

Did YOU vote for Obama?

No, but I have talked to a lot of people who did vote for him while holding Tea Party events, and while campaigning in recent elections. One of the most common "Change" that they wanted to see was bringing the troops home. And that's a source of a lot of contention at this point, for people who bought what Obama sold them. But, if Republicans put up another gung-ho war candidate in 2012, then the issue will be totally neutralized in the election against Obama.

 

[teddy12b]

But, if Republicans put up another gung-ho war candidate in 2012, then the issue will be totally neutralized in the election against Obama.

At some point those people you're referring to really aren't "republicans" anymore. In today's time the only thing seperating a "R" vs a "D" is what they want to spend money on and who they want to bomb. I wish it wasn't the case, but I see little difference between the two parties these days.

 

[88GT]

No, but I have talked to a lot of people who did vote for him while holding Tea Party events, and while campaigning in recent elections. One of the most common "Change" that they wanted to see was bringing the troops home. And that's a source of a lot of contention at this point, for people who bought what Obama sold them. But, if Republicans put up another gung-ho war candidate in 2012, then the issue will be totally neutralized in the election against Obama.

Well, why not? He's anti-war, isn't he? You should have been running the polls that day to put him in office, right?

Voting for someone based on a single issue hardly makes one "freedom-loving." You still haven't shown me where there's a majority of the population that is going to help Paul get there. Hell, by your own words more than half of the R party is just as eager to control the lives of others and spend like a drunken sailor as the Left. So I'm not buying your BS or Paul's.

 

[rambone]

Well, why not? He's anti-war, isn't he? You should have been running the polls that day to put him in office, right?

I've been an ACORN spy this whole time.

 

[dross]

Yes, all Republicans hate liberty and those that love it.

Well, I certainly do.

Where did the neg rep button go?

Where indeed.

 

[cobber]

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?

This and more. The Executive has a lot of power to put the genie back.