Let's imagine for a second that Ron Paul somehow becomes president next 2012 (freak incident takes Romney out of the primary, economic downturn hurts Obama politically). Now, my question is, to what extent would Congress co-operate with him? Congress would probably be Republican in this case, but the Republicans in Congress might have a totally different world view from Paul. Do you think they could co-operate, or do you think Congress would block Paul's plans/Paul would veto laws made by Congress?
A Paul Presidency
- Thread starter dutchfire
- Start date
Even the most hardcore conservative Republican Congress is not going to end the Federal Reserve, and likely won't even audit it. Wall St will tell them not to, and that will be the end of that idea. They also will not substantially reduce overseas military commitments. Iraq and Afghanistan will be abandoned, but not Korea or Japan. Much less Europe.
On other issues Paul is close enough to other Republicans that they will largely try and work with him. And what gets accomplished will depend on a large extent on Paul's willingness to compromise. We could very well see a Republican president with a Republican Congress in opposition.
On other issues Paul is close enough to other Republicans that they will largely try and work with him. And what gets accomplished will depend on a large extent on Paul's willingness to compromise. We could very well see a Republican president with a Republican Congress in opposition.
Murky
Deity
You have a better chance of winning the lottery than Ron Paul has of becoming President.
holy king
Deity
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
I sure hope so. I just bought a lottery ticket for the first time in years. If I hit the big money, it would be about ten million.
Murky
Deity
Powerball is 1 in 195 million.
There is a possibility that just the fact that Paul was elected might trigger a run on the dollar, possibly triggering another financial crisis. If I understand correctly, Paul wants to abolish fiat money (and isn't clear what he wants as replacement). If implemented, the dollar in its current incarnation would become worthless. I agree that even as President he is unlikely to get his wish, but there is a threat that he might convince Congress of doing so. So if I was a major holder of dollar reserves, I'd try to get rid of them. If everybody starts doing this, the value of the dollar would plummet even before Paul takes office.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
There is a good chance that we could set new records on the most frequent use of the veto, and also the most frequent use of congressional overrides of vetoes.
I agree that there is no real chance that a President Paul could end The Federal Reserve, but am less sure about auditing it. Plenty of republicans and some democrats have at least started parroting the "audit the Fed" line. I doubt they would audit it to the extent that Paul would like, but I could see at least some limited review of documents from previous years.
Now that I think of it, there is a chance that Congress might pass a bill to audit or maybe even end the Fed, but only after attaching to it a so many unrelated proposals so abhorrent to Paul's ideology that they are absolutely certain he would veto it.
Does the Commander-in-Chief even need congressional cooperation to bring troops home and shut down overseas military bases? I suppose that he might need their approval to officially close and sell off the bases, but believe that it is within his authority to order all the military personnel to come home. I don't really see what military commitments they could hold him to without an actual declaration of war.
Paul could not repeal drug laws without congressional approval, but they cannot stop him from issuing pardons to all nonviolent drug offenders.
There are plenty of executive orders he could overturn all by himself, even if congress might override a veto to pass laws bringing back the equivalent of some of them.
I agree that there is no real chance that a President Paul could end The Federal Reserve, but am less sure about auditing it. Plenty of republicans and some democrats have at least started parroting the "audit the Fed" line. I doubt they would audit it to the extent that Paul would like, but I could see at least some limited review of documents from previous years.
Now that I think of it, there is a chance that Congress might pass a bill to audit or maybe even end the Fed, but only after attaching to it a so many unrelated proposals so abhorrent to Paul's ideology that they are absolutely certain he would veto it.
Does the Commander-in-Chief even need congressional cooperation to bring troops home and shut down overseas military bases? I suppose that he might need their approval to officially close and sell off the bases, but believe that it is within his authority to order all the military personnel to come home. I don't really see what military commitments they could hold him to without an actual declaration of war.
Paul could not repeal drug laws without congressional approval, but they cannot stop him from issuing pardons to all nonviolent drug offenders.
There are plenty of executive orders he could overturn all by himself, even if congress might override a veto to pass laws bringing back the equivalent of some of them.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
So that is how the world ends.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Ralph Nader: "I've long argued that airliners should have secure cockpit doors. If I had been president, the 9-11 terrorists wouldn't have been able to take over those planes."
Some comedienne whose name I shamefully forgot: "Of course not - they would have been too distracted by all the flying pigs!"
Some comedienne whose name I shamefully forgot: "Of course not - they would have been too distracted by all the flying pigs!"
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
And while he's President, he can travel to Hell's Ski Resort.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Ron Paul being forced to be diplomatic to Congress would probably look ridiculous at first.
Post-inaugural Ron Paul apologizing to his supporters for making compromises would be comedy gold. The libertarians would spawn a newer, truer-to-the-vision under/not-Ron Paul candidate, I'm sure.
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
I am not a libertarian but I support Paul for his foreign policy and that he will bring about peace. The president is the commander in chief and can therefore end the warmongering day one.
Paul has no intention of "bringing about peace". He would only allow all the wars to rage unchecked that would not have happened if the US had been keeping a lid on them. There will be more wars, not less, if threats of US intervention are removed.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
A Ron Paul presidency would definitely mark the biggest shift in American political culture since FDR, perhaps even more.
Note that a president doesn't need much cooperation from congress as he already has tremendous power using executive orders. Many federal agencies were created by executive and could be wiped out just as easily. He might just as well issue an XO to halt all enforcement of federal regulations he doesn't agree with.
Note that a president doesn't need much cooperation from congress as he already has tremendous power using executive orders. Many federal agencies were created by executive and could be wiped out just as easily. He might just as well issue an XO to halt all enforcement of federal regulations he doesn't agree with.
GhostWriter16
Deity
)
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Yes, years of political stalemate, with no compromise or any deals, is inherently a good thing because
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,412
Which if true would bring jobs back to America as a weak dollar would make our exports more competitive and domestic business explodes to exploit the inability of Americans to afford all those suddenly exorbitantly priced imports. A wonderful thing the self correcting nature of markets left free of the government thumb.
