Recognitions:
Gold Member

## Ron Paul's candidacy

 Quote by FlexGunship Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note: The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.
Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ...

 The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.
Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.  The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse). I don't know. Of course the President can not unilaterally overturn the Federal Reserve Act. He requires positive action by the Congress, new legislation to do that. He does however have the power to appoint Fed Chairmen, so he could certainly appoint someone that will pursue only tight money policy, open the Fed books to auditing, etc, somebody like Jim Grant. The appointment is subject to Senate approval, but again for a newly elected P. he will get his way for awhile, and even if not, as the current President has demonstrated, he can do rolling recess appointments.  The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss). A newly elected President might push that through the Senate, as there is already substantial agreement. The usual defense of catering to the rich won't stick to a President Paul.  Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Staff Emeritus Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1588.html Mentor Blog Entries: 4  Quote by Gokul43201 Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1588.html He's losing to Romney in the latest poll.  Romney back to leading US Republicans in Iowa: poll (AFP) – 3 hours ago WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney has retaken the lead among Republican White House contenders in Iowa less than two weeks before it holds the first nominating contest, a poll said Thursday. The former Massachusetts governor and on-again, off-again favorite had appeared to slip behind former House speaker Newt Gingrich in recent weeks, but the poll by Rasmussen Reports showed Romney regaining momentum. The poll showed Romney with 25 percent support, followed by small-government champion Ron Paul at 20 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent, with the remainder of the candidates at 10 percent or less. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...1bb3a6ef85b.a1 Blog Entries: 3  Quote by mheslep Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ... Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.
He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by John Creighto He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.
As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.

Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
 Quote by mheslep As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.
It does if they're crazy.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Evo It does if they're crazy.
Well that's why he's not going to be President.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul. http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Johnson/

Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
 Quote by mheslep Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?

There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?

This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.

 Quote by mheslep Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.

He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Evo They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh? There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?
Well Johnson has been in from nearly the beginning, just didn't poll high enough to get in all of the debates. Anyway, yeah its too late now for brand new faces. A Santorum or a Huntsman could surge with a campaign already on the ground. A large chunk of the delegates get committed in the primaries to somebody in March, 3 months. I agree with Intrade: this is Romney's race now that Newt's bubble broke, 68% chance. Romney's serious, he has his pace, is not prone to mistakes. If he picks a strong VP*, and there are several very strong candidates, I think he beats the President if the economy stays flat.

What's Obama going to do on that score BTW, Biden being a heartbeat away an all that? President Biden?

 Quote by Evo It does if they're crazy.
I recall your caution against these threads on politicians degenerating into name-calling.

Paul's positions seem to me to be consistent with his political philosophy (libertarianism), which might in itself be viewed as extremist to a fault, but I don't think it should be characterized as crazy.

When considered wrt most of the GOP candidates, Paul doesn't seem all that crazy (or incompetent, or ill-prepared, or oportunistically slimey). But I suppose that that view isn't really saying much for Paul.

The question wrt the GOP nomination has been framed around which candidate the 'Christian right' will go for. They don't seem to be too happy with the candidates that had previously been supposed to be their obvious choices.

Romney's Mormon association is a big negative for him. Newt comes off as being too smart sometimes. Too few people are familiar with Huntsman. Paul has been around for a long time, but at the rate that he accrues new supporters he would have to be around until (I figure) the mid 2100's to actually get nominated for, much less elected to, the presidency.
 Mentor Blog Entries: 4 Who do you think Romney would pick?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by mheslep ...he's not going to be President.
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent.

 Quote by Evo They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh? There's got to be a new influx, don't you think? This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.
Condy Rice, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush are all possibles. In the bad old days, conventions were brokered in smoke filled rooms. That's not supposed to happen these days. But if circumstances became dire enough, the party bosses and financial backers could conceivably subvert the process. All's fair in love and war.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by ThomasT Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.
Ok as of Nov 29. I missed that, though I'd heard him say he might earlier.

 He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?
Dunno, but I guess there's only room for one libertarian flag waiver inside the GOP. Right now that's Paul. I heard Johnson on air saying he visited Paul way back when, was warmly accepted until he told Paul he was going to run in the GOP upon which the "conversation quickly ended" and he was shown the door.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Evo Who do you think Romney would pick?
Rubio. Got to be.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Dotini I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent...
Yes, exactly. He can exert a great deal of influence IF he's reasonable. That is, if he agrees not to run independent in return for getting the nominee to accept some fraction of his policies, and I hope that would be to curtail military spending, then he'll get influence. On the other hand if starts the there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats routine (as he has before) I'm running independent, then he will have zero influence on the GOP, though he'll get Obama reelected.

 Similar discussions for: Ron Paul's candidacy Thread Forum Replies Science Textbook Discussion 12 Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 5 General Discussion 10 Current Events 197 Current Events 1