You seem to not get it...If Ron Paul wins, the country would have fundamentally changed it's 100 year governing philosophy.
Unlike the politicians we are used to, Ron Paul doesn't change his message to fit a certain audience. Ron Paul's message is the same in front of a gay audience, as it is a Hispanic audience, as it is a Jewish audience. If Ron Paul wins, it's not because he promised a certain voting bloc one thing, then another voting bloc another thing. He doesn't pander.
The Ron Paul movement began in 2010 when the Democrats were trounced in the House and nearly lost the Senate. Congress is moving in the opposite direction you are suggesting. Your hypothetical is a highly likely premise if Ron Paul were elected President.
Assuming that hell freezes over, pigs can fly, and Cicero takes a reading comp class... Ron Paul in the White House... (Much like Jimmy Carter, a loner with little support from either party.)
Congress is, as it is today controlled by TeaBagger Republicans with help from the Republicans and a minority Democrats.
The Senate is just about split, democrats and Republicans but NO RON PAUL FANS.
The Congress & Senate pass 100 new bills and decide to declare war on Iran. Ron Paul 's veto is overridden...
Ron Paul Is Irrelevant.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ron Paul as commander and chief doesn't deploy troops on Iran. Congress would have to move on impeaching Paul for dereliction of duty. Highly unlikely scenerio. Unless you really believe the American people are that blood thirsty and willing to spill the blood of their sons and daughters in defense of Israel.
Ron Paul as commander and chief doesn't deploy troops on Iran. Congress would have to move on impeaching Paul for dereliction of duty. Highly unlikely scenerio. Unless you really believe the American people are that blood thirsty and willing to spill the blood of their sons and daughters in defense of Israel.
LMAO!!!
Cicero is discussing a scene where Ron Paul is actually elected US President... then he throws in the phrase: "Highly unlikely scenario."
The entire premise of President Paul is a "Highly unlikely scenario."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Poor Cic.. when he gets frustrated he gets profane. DUMBASS!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
What Paul proposes has little to do with what is possible if he is elected. He can propose all he wants... who will pass that legislation??? Democrats??? Republicans??? so far, no one.
Paul is irrelevant in the political process other than a draw away from other GOP candidates... A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. (Thanks Ron Paul)
we must shake out the old crumbs from congress.......let them retire now....we dont like them.....they have FAILED.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Cicero considers the term "dumbass" essential in his vocabulary. With out it, he's lost.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
And I will post it again, since you don't seem to get it... What will Ron Paul do if the US Congress and Senate vote to enlarge government... Pass hundreds of new laws. How will Ron Paul do anything about that. Congress can pass laws, and they can override Paul's veto. Paul as President is powerless with out willing Democrats and Republicans to follow his plan. So far, none have.
Actually, much of what Mr. Paul has promised to do has nothing to do with Congress, including eliminating many positions through closure of unconstitutional entities. Also, he can veto any bill that he wishes. The fact is that the Congress can override any veto, but it was made so that it would be very difficult for it to be done. In the House, it takes a simple majority to pass a bill, and 60 votes in the Senate. For them to override the Presidential Veto, it would take a 2/3 majority in both houses. That's an additional 12 votes that would be needed in the Senate, and a whopping 72 additional votes in the House. 218 to pass, 290 to override a veto. That's a tough vote, and meant to be by those who formulated the way Congress would be set up. Also, the fact is that if things were the way when Congress originally wrote the Constitution, it would be MUCH more difficult to pass anything in Congress, much less override a veto.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
What If Ron Paul Wins Iowa? by Ana Marie Cox The Guardian
Ron Paul is in a position to pull off an upset in the Iowa caucuses in three weeks that would have serious ramifications for the Republican party elite.
Going into Thursday night's debate – and the caucuses only 21 days away – probably the only person who thinks Newt Gingrich can meet the high expectations his recent poll and debate performances have set is Newt Gingrich.
The rest of the field, and political operatives, are getting ready for a scenario that just three months ago would have seemed as far-fetched as, I don't know, Herman Cain being the front-runner: Ron Paul winning Iowa.
Among Iowa voters, Paul is the only candidate in the top tier (he's in the top tier!) that has not seen his support rise precipitously and then erode. Paul is, in fact, the only candidate that has seen his support simply grow.
This solid base, combined with Paul's Iowa organization – unlike Romney or Gingrich, he has one – put Paul in the position to pull an upset that has the potential to shake-up not just the 2012 race, but the way the GOP conducts its primaries for years to come.
Within the party, moderates and realists (these groups overlap but are not exactly the same) have been quietly making the case for years that Iowa's caucus picks wind up hurting the GOP in general elections. Though the actual caucus winners are often the eventual nominee, the social conservatives who wind up doing well in Iowa (winner Mike Huckabee, and runner-ups Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson) reinforce stereotypes that younger Republicans especially would like the party to move away from.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Ron Paul winning in Iowa will be as significant as Ron Paul winning a straw poll... NO significance, except to point out how weak the GOP field actually is.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Gingrich Collapses in Iowa as Ron Paul Surges to the Front
A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows that Ron Paul has taken the lead in the Iowa caucus race, while Newt Gingrich's support is fading fast. A different Gallup poll shows Gringrich still holding the lead, but slipping, while The New York Times has Paul in the lead as well.
Gingrich has seen his numbers in the PPP poll drop from 27 percent to 14 percent in just three weeks, while his favorability rating is now split at 46 percent for to 47 percent against, the worst of any candidate not named Jon Huntsman. That's quite a fall for someone who looked to be running away with the state and taking charge on the national level.
Mitt Romney has also seen his numbers tick up slightly (to 20%), putting him just behind Paul (23%) for second place. The poll measured voters who are planning to vote in the Republican caucus.
Perhaps the most telling secondary question was, "Do you think Newt Gingrich has strong principles?" Only 36 percent say that he does, but for Paul that number was 73 percent.
The bad news for Paul, however, is that when asked for their second choice for President, only 9% said they would vote for him after their preferred candidate. That means if supporters of any of the second-tier candidates sense defeat and decided to abandon their choice at the last minute, those votes are more likely to go to Romney. Even if Romney doesn't win, the stronger than expected showing could be the snowball that starts a primary avalanche for him.
One other tidbit from the PPP poll, the first question about Barack Obama asked if the respondents think he was born in the United States. Fifty-two percent either said he was not or they're not sure.
Logged
