A Paul Presidency

[Core Imposter]

Yes, years of political stalemate, with no compromise or any deals, is inherently a good thing because

All legislation represents the loss of liberty by someone somewhere.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes, years of political stalemate, with no compromise or any deals, is inherently a good thing because

A lot of what they call "Compromise" I call "Excuse to bring bigger government." Americans don't want or need that. 63% of Americans didn't want Obamacare. It was shoved down our throats. Just one example of what "Compromise" can do. A deadlock is good because it leaves Americans freer.

 

[downtown]

I think we'd see a privitized version of social security and the dismantling of Medicare pretty quickly...but I have a hard time seeing Republicans going along with his ideas for drug laws, drawing down the military, or defunding major federal departments. The idea of ending the Fed is, of course, not going to happen, unless Paul can recruit hundreds more of his friends to congress.

It's telling...Paul was in congress for decades, and never really convinced any of his peers to go along with his philosophy. I can't imagine a Paul Presidency would get much done at all.

 

[downtown]

A lot of what they call "Compromise" I call "Excuse to bring bigger government." Americans don't want or need that. 63% of Americans didn't want Obamacare. It was shoved down our throats. Just one example of what "Compromise" can do. A deadlock is good because it leaves Americans freer.

At least 20% of those didn't want Obamacare because it wasn't BIG enough.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

Except that the stock market would fall to its lowest point in 80 years as capital fled the country and most of the financial service sector of the economy would be liquidated. It would immediately kick off a global Great Depression.

 

[Ajidica]

But that would be a good thing because of GOLD MONEY and the FED IS GONE and FREE MARKET and JOBS!!!!!!!!

 

[Cutlass]

All legislation represents the loss of liberty by someone somewhere.

And tons of other legislation restored liberty to people who had it stripped from them, often by the "free market".

 

[useless]

The slaves were actually free because they didn't have all that BIG GUBBERMENT regulations and 'ELF AND SAFETY stuff tying them down

 

[Bud2998]

You would see every non-violent drug offender in federal prison be pardoned, probably within his first week. That would be big.

 

[Bud2998]

I think we'd see a privitized version of social security and the dismantling of Medicare pretty quickly...

Why do you think that? His proposed plan has absolutely no cuts to either program:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

 

[Ajidica]

You would see every non-violent drug offender in federal prison be pardoned, probably within his first week. That would be big.

Yeah no.
From the DOJ's own website:

3. Five-year waiting period required

Under the Department's rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., an applicant must satisfy a minimum waiting period of five years before he becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon of his federal conviction. The waiting period, which is designed to afford the petitioner a reasonable period of time in which to demonstrate an ability to lead a responsible, productive and law-abiding life, begins on the date of the petitioner's release from confinement. Alternatively, if the conviction resulted in a sentence that did not include any form of confinement, including community or home confinement, the waiting period begins on the date of sentencing. In addition, the petitioner should have fully satisfied the penalty imposed, including all probation, parole, or supervised release before applying for clemency. Moreover, the waiting period begins upon release from confinement for your most recent conviction, whether or not this is the offense for which pardon is sought. You may make a written request for a waiver of this requirement. However, waiver of any portion of the waiting period is rarely granted and then only in the most exceptional circumstances. In order to request a waiver, you must complete the pardon application form and submit it with a cover letter explaining why you believe the waiting period should be waived in your case.

Ford's pardon of Nixon was a unique pardon deriving from its unique situation. A Nixon-style pardon would simply create far too many question of overreaching the constitutionaly defined terms of presidential authority. Given that Paul needs to check if the constitution allows him to take a piss in the morning, I doubt he will take the course of action you seem to believe he would.

Why do you think that? His proposed plan has absolutely no cuts to either program:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issue...store-america/

Not quite. From ABC:

Ron Paul’s views on health care came under fire tonight at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, where his position on eliminating Medicaid was met with open hostility from the audience.

Paul has called for the eventual elimination of Medicare and Medicaid and has suggested that charity hospitals should pick up the slack for the uninsured. That view got one woman in Manchester up in arms.
...
Paul said that his current budget preserves the program, but it would eventually be phased out because of the unsustainable cost

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-attacked-for-views-on-health-care/
So, either we have a situation where Ron Paul, the defender of liberty and freedom, is preserving socialized medicine with the proud shield of his veto pen, or you (and Paul's site) are stressing the definition of 'cut' in the english language more then they can be expected to endure.

 

[Bud2998]

Ford's pardon of Nixon was a unique pardon deriving from its unique situation. A Nixon-style pardon would simply create far too many question of overreaching the constitutionaly defined terms of presidential authority. Given that Paul needs to check if the constitution allows him to take a piss in the morning, I doubt he will take the course of action you seem to believe he would.

Those are rules set by the justice department which a president Paul, as head of the executive branch, could easily ignore if he so chooses. The constitution gives no special requirements for receiving a federal pardon.

So, either we have a situation where Ron Paul, the defender of liberty and freedom, is preserving socialized medicine with the proud shield of his veto pen, or you (and Paul's site) are stressing the definition of 'cut' in the english language more then they can be expected to endure.

I was responding to a point made that Ron Paul would quickly privatize social security and medicare. That's simply untrue. What would more likely be the case is that he would lay the groundwork for ending those programs in the long-term (which would take many decades), but given his budget proposal, it should give nobody any reason to believe he's going to make any real cuts in either.

He has made the point time and again that although he disagrees with both social security and medicare, the federal government has entered into a contract with the people to provide those services they funded and he fully intends to honor that.

 

[Bud2998]

Here's what Article II Section II of the US constitution has to say about presidential pardons, which I can guarantee you is the only thing Ron Paul would consider if he were to be president:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

 

[Ajidica]

Those are rules set by the justice department which a president Paul, as head of the executive branch, could easily ignore if he so chooses. The constitution gives no special requirements for receiving a federal pardon.

I think in many ways you have proved the gist of the thread: That President Paul would either become an establishment man, or he would turn the Executive Office into a 'Dictatorship of Paul' to carry out his wishes while removing any oversight.

What would more likely be the case is that he would lay the groundwork for ending those programs in the long-term (which would take many decades), but given his budget proposal, it should give nobody any reason to believe he's going to make any real cuts in either.

So if Paul doesn't make any real cuts, is he going to have the government offer Medicare, Medicaid, and SocSec alongside private options? You cannot have your cake, eat it, and then sell it for a profit which is what you seem to suggest is Paul's plan.

He has made the point time and again that although he disagrees with both social security and medicare, the federal government has entered into a contract with the people to provide those services they funded and he fully intends to honor that.

So Paul is keeping the exact same departments he has railed against and said he would cut?

Here's what Article II Section II of the US constitution has to say about presidential pardons, which I can guarantee you is the only thing Ron Paul would consider if he were to be president:

I assume then Ron Paul will be eliminating the Air Force because despite saying that taxes can be levied for an army and navy, the air force is noticably absent from appropriate reasons for taxation.

 

[Bud2998]

I think in many ways you have proved the gist of the thread: That President Paul would either become an establishment man, or he would turn the Executive Office into a 'Dictatorship of Paul' to carry out his wishes while removing any oversight.

How? By following the constitution?

Just because he would disregard rules and precedent in the justice department that go beyond what the constitution lays out doesn't mean he's turning the office of the presidency into some sort of dictatorship.

So if Paul doesn't make any real cuts, is he going to have the government offer Medicare, Medicaid, and SocSec alongside private options? You cannot have your cake, eat it, and then sell it for a profit which is what you seem to suggest is Paul's plan.

Look at his budget plan. He leaves social security and medicare untouched (ie. as they are now), and he's able to cut $1 trillion from the budget by eliminating those 5 executive departments he talks about while also cutting a bundle from military spending. His numbers do add up.

The question is mainly whether or not he could get that kind of plan passed through Congress.

So Paul is keeping the exact same departments he has railed against and said he would cut?

What are you talking about? Did you even read the budget plan I linked to?

Just because Ron Paul's budget plan doesn't make any cuts to social security or medicare doesn't mean that it doesn't make any cuts to the five departments he talks about cutting.

I assume then Ron Paul will be eliminating the Air Force because despite saying that taxes can be levied for an army and navy, the air force is noticably absent from appropriate reasons for taxation.

Now you're putting up strawmen. Good job.

 

[Ajidica]

Just because he would disregard rules and precedent in the justice department that go beyond what the constitution lays out doesn't mean he's turning the office of the presidency into some sort of dictatorship.

Well, you know who else ignored established precedent in a democraticaly elected office to suit his own political prefrences? [Censored to keep Godwin happy]

Look at his budget plan. He leaves social security and medicare untouched (ie. as they are now), and he's able to cut $1 trillion from the budget by eliminating those 5 executive departments he talks about while also cutting a bundle from military spending. His numbers do add up.

Which five? The department that ensures poor students get food?

What are you talking about? Did you even read the budget plan I linked to?

A list of talking points combined with some farcical dreams of what he can cut does not a budget plan make.
As I've learned from the recent debt battle, never trust the results of an individual trying to show his policy as the best, especialy when he decides whose results for his policy he prints.

Now you're putting up strawmen. Good job.

If you are going to throw out established precedent in the Justice Department, how is it strawmanning when I assume you are going to throw out established precedent in the Defense Department?

 

[Bud2998]

Well, you know who else ignored established precedent in a democraticaly elected office to suit his own political prefrences? [Censored to keep Godwin happy]

So you believe a government based on our constitution will lead to something akin to Nazism? What?

Which five? The department that ensures poor students get food?

I believe he talks about eliminating the departments of education, commerce, energy, housing and urban development, and the interior while transferring the vital functions of those departments (like the handling of nuclear material) to other departments (in the nuclear material case, the department of defense).

You can discuss the merits of that all you'd like - none of it means he'd necessarily make any cuts to social security or medicare.

A list of talking points combined with some farcical dreams of what he can cut does not a budget plan make.
As I've learned from the recent debt battle, never trust the results of an individual trying to show his policy as the best, especialy when he decides whose results for his policy he prints.

Yet you're trying to suggest he would cut medicare and social security when nothing he has proposed would you lead you to believe that.

He talks about the eventual elimination of those programs, but to suggest that he would do it quickly and do anything more than lay the groundwork is honest..

If you are going to throw out established precedent in the Justice Department, how is it strawmanning when I assume you are going to throw out established precedent in the Defense Department?

The US constitution does mandate that the president is in charge of national defense. Ron Paul has stated before that he believes the primary function of the federal government is to ensure the defense of the country. It's a strawman because you suggest he would cut the air force when it is very necessary to our national defense. You assume you have a point because he would ignore rules set by the justice department beyond what the constitution lays out, but your point is baseless because, again, a national defense is something the constitution mandates the president maintains.

 

[Leoreth]

Do you think your constitution makes you immune to a dictatorial overthrow?

Although that's really the last accusation I would direct at Ron Paul, to be honest.

 

[Ajidica]

So you believe a government based on our constitution will lead to something akin to Nazism? What?

If Ron Paul have nutty, extremist views and have you respect them, why can't I?

Yet you're trying to suggest he would cut medicare and social security when nothing he has proposed would you lead you to believe that.

A reduction of spending in that area to 2006 levels, a time of relativel prosperity, when the current number of recipients is rising due to unemployment and unemployment, is nothing other than a cut, it is simply one responsiblity he prefers to wash his hands of and have somebody else take care of.

The US constitution does mandate that the president is in charge of national defense. Ron Paul has stated before that he believes the primary function of the federal government is to ensure the defense of the country. It's a strawman because you suggest he would cut the air force when it is very necessary to our national defense. You assume you have a point because he would ignore rules set by the justice department beyond what the constitution lays out, but your point is baseless because, again, a national defense is something the constitution mandates the president maintains.

So following the law is not needed for national defense?

 

[Cutlass]

Do you think your constitution makes you immune to a dictatorial overthrow?

Although that's really the last accusation I would direct at Ron Paul, to be honest.

A lot of people seem to think there's a creeping dictatorial overthrow. Of course, there real problem is in letting living voters control their own fate.