Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[kentonio]

The main question with a Ron Paul presidency is what would he truly be able to accomplish? Which parts of his agenda would he be able to do, on his own as president, vs. what would he need legislation passed through congress.

Firstly anyone who votes someone into power based on thinking they won't be able to accomplish their stated goals is walking on very dangerous ground indeed. Secondly, have you actually seen the current congress? Can you imagine how quickly the GOP house would get behind a measure to rip Medicare, Medicaid and SS apart? They've been trying for the last 2 years to do it despite the dem in the White House.

[Jon Miller]

"Sure, current politicians support people being tortured and held indefinitely without trial, but at least those who are 'good' citizens are well cared for!"

JM

[kentonio]

All of those, including the pollution one, are of less importance to me than civil liberties.

JM

You will indeed be free to be treated like a serf by employers and left to starve if you are unfortunate enough to lose your job and be taken ill. Possibly taken ill by the polluted rivers and smog filled air. Btw I'd advise saving up an awfully big retirement fund, because the insurance companies will drop you at 60 and you'll be paying for your entire elderly care from your savings. If those go then you'll probably just be left to die.

[Felch]

The main question with a Ron Paul presidency is what would he truly be able to accomplish? Which parts of his agenda would he be able to do, on his own as president, vs. what would he need legislation passed through congress.

Most of what progressives would find objectionable about Paul is his economic policy. Cuts to spending and such. Most of that would need to be approved through the House and Senate. As we have seen over the last year it is pretty hard for this stuff to pass. Even with all the sharp rhetoric about spending cuts, the cuts proposed by the 'radical' Republicans in the house were fairly modest compared to what Paul would actually like to do. No one seriously proposed cutting entire government agencies. And no one, certainly, was going to move us onto the gold standard. Doing so would be difficult to accomplish. So... vote Paul for president and vote for democrats for Senate and House.

While his domestic agenda might be stymied, Presidents (increasingly) have tremendous say over foreign policy. President Gingrich, President Santorum, President Obama, etc could easily bomb Iran without having to convince anyone else in the government. They can just go and do it. Ron Paul in the White House would make good on all his foreign policy promises, even if he is unable to achieve his domestic goals.

So if you like him purely or mostly for foreign policy, go for it.

Ozzy

[kentonio]

"Sure, current politicians support people being tortured and held indefinitely without trial, but at least those who are 'good' citizens are well cared for!"

JM

I'm right behind you in thinking the NDAA is facist crap, but theres other ways to get rid of it than voting in a crazy Randist.

[Jon Miller]

I'm right behind you in thinking the NDAA is facist crap, but theres other ways to get rid of it than voting in a crazy Randist.

What politicians who get national exposure are against NDAA/Patriot Act/etc?

I would rather have a possible poor/miserable 60/70/80+ than a possible held indefinitely and tortured 32+.

JM

[HalfLotus]

Oh and before I get accused of being a '****'

Paul's domestic economic agenda is based on free market principles, and you already stated that you "don't know **** about markets".

[kentonio]

What politicians who get national exposure are against NDAA/Patriot Act/etc?

I would rather have a possible poor/miserable 60/70/80+ than a possible held indefinitely and tortured 32+.

JM

It's your own fault. Not you personally, but all the people who don't write to their elected representatives and vote out representatives who refuse to vote against such things. People get so damn lazy in our democracies, and then turn to extreme solutions to problems that could be solved with a little effort by everyone.

Paul's domestic economic agenda is based on free market principles, and you already stated that you "don't know **** about markets".

I don't need to understand the inner workings of the financial markets to understand that leaving poor, elderly and sick people to fend for themselves is inhumane and anti-social behaviour.

[Felch]

Firstly anyone who votes someone into power based on thinking they won't be able to accomplish their stated goals is walking on very dangerous ground indeed. Secondly, have you actually seen the current congress? Can you imagine how quickly the GOP house would get behind a measure to rip Medicare, Medicaid and SS apart? They've been trying for the last 2 years to do it despite the dem in the White House.

Currently the Democrats have a majority in the Senate. Even if the GOP took the Senate, they would need a supermajority of 60 seats in order to defeat any Democratic filibusters. Even with that supermajority, Paul would need all those Republicans to get in line. American party whips are nothing like their British counterparts, especially in the Senate. And Ron Paul is no LBJ - he's a populist rabblerouser with some good ideas, but he's not an effective politician who can push an agenda through the morass of the Senate.

Finally, not to intrude on your delusions with reality, but the House hasn't passed any bills this Congress to "rip Medicare, Medicaid and SS apart." Maybe you should listen to Americans when we discuss things, especially Ozzy who has experience in public policy.

[Jon Miller]

I do write (through amnesty international) my representatives and I do vote against such representatives.

Both US senators of my current 'voting' state voted against the NDAA:
Voted No
Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]

I urge people to vote against any other incumbant senator.

JM

[kentonio]

Even if the GOP took the Senate, they would need a supermajority of 60 seats in order to defeat any Democratic filibusters.

You think that the dems could get away with filibustering everything that came along? Take over the mantle of 'the party of no' and still be re-elected?

Finally, not to intrude on your delusions with reality, but the House hasn't passed any bills this Congress to "rip Medicare, Medicaid and SS apart."

They've been trying to reduce funding to a number of programs, and supported Ryans plan on mass. Did you really miss the last 2 years?

[kentonio]

I do write (through amnesty international) my representatives and I do vote against such representatives.

Which is cool. If everyone did this kind of **** wouldn't happen.

[Felch]

You think that the dems could get away with filibustering everything that came along? Take over the mantle of 'the party of no' and still be re-elected?

YES! A Democrat who filibusters a bill to end Social Security is not going to lose an election over it. If you doubt that, you really don't understand American politics.

They've been trying to reduce funding to a number of programs, and supported Ryans plan on mass. Did you really miss the last 2 years?

I'm gonna say it again. The House hasn't passed any bills this Congress to "rip Medicare, Medicaid and SS apart." Entitlements are a political third rail - old people vote in huge numbers and nobody is passing any bills to get rid of them. Even Ron Paul hasn't come out with any plans to get rid of them. You are wrong about this, through and through.

[kentonio]

YES! A Democrat who filibusters a bill to end Social Security is not going to lose an election over it. If you doubt that, you really don't understand American politics.

Except it wouldn't be a single bill to end social security, it'd be bill after bill after bill on all sorts of things, with a constant erosion of benefits plastered all over each one. The big ones would wait until the reps had some heavyweight leverage on something else. A simple majority in one house is enough to slow down a lot of things, but thats exactly what the GOP have done in the house since 2010. You taken a look at the house approval ratings recently?

I'm gonna say it again. The House hasn't passed any bills this Congress to "rip Medicare, Medicaid and SS apart." Entitlements are a political third rail - old people vote in huge numbers and nobody is passing any bills to get rid of them.

5 years ago you'd have been right on the money, now you're wrong. When Paul Ryan can stand up and propose replacing Medicare with a voucher system, and have the GOP following him slavishly, then that third rail ain't working any more. They worked out that on the back of the debt crisis, they could lie to people and say that unless they radically chop the programs, the programs will be unaffordable anyway. It seems to be working out for them.

Even Ron Paul hasn't come out with any plans to get rid of them. You are wrong about this, through and through.

You mean the guy I quoted on this very page as saying he thought those programs were all unconstitutional?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd imagine, thought, that Democrats want more spending in some areas, including higher tax rates on the wealthy - not just a status quo in spending.