MSNBC - The bane of conservatives - is one of the few outlets acknowledging Paul wins

[BDBoop]

Which brings up a good point.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

There's quite a lot he could do, just with a veto stamp. But especially on foreign policy. And the difference between him and pretenders like Obama is, he'd actually do it.

But how do you use a veto stamp to (as in my instance) make marijuana legal?

I need a refresher course, I've been out of school for 35 years. Do Presidents present bills?

 

[Google]

Which brings up a good point.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

So if he was elected president and he decides to end the conflict in Afghanistan, how does Congress stop him? I am asking in good faith, because as far as I understand Congress could not stop him as Commander and Chief of doing that.

Thank you!! That's what I was asking.

What if he is serious about legitimizing marijuana (at the very least). Is that something he could make happen, or would he be at the fully mercy of the House and Senate?

I don't think he'd use the power of the presidency to legalize drugs. In fact, he has said that it is upon the states to decide that, and that federal intervention against the wishes of the states is unconstitutional. The kind of federal intervention that was seen during Bush's administration with the DEA arresting people that were within the state laws of California. BTW Obama did end that practice.

 

[freedombecki]

Perry has a double-digit lead over both Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney, According to the Rasmussen Reports. If they weren't both Texans, Ron Paul would make a truly great running mate. Maybe they'll make him the U.S. Treasurer. Talk about a win-win for the American people.

 

[Synthaholic]

What's an "MSNBC?"

please don't feed the trolls.

 

[Paulie]

Which brings up a good point.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

0 chance.

So we should just keep electing the puppets, even though they keep fucking us.

And then we'll elect a puppet from the opposite party next time around to get a little 'change', even though we know that one will fuck us too.

It's cool, because each time around we have the other party to choose from to get back at the current one for fucking us!

I'll try again.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

Can you respond without ranting? I really want to know if he could prevail, despite Congress likely lockstepping against him.

Here is exactly what would happen:

We would find out just exactly what the republicans in congress are really made of.

If they blocked all his efforts, then they'd be exposed as the liberals that most of them actually are. But I'd imagine they'd go along with a lot more than they'd oppose.

And I would think he'd probably get more support from dems than any republican president in recent memory. Dems see eye to eye with him on more issues than your average republican, socially at least.

 

[Google]

Which brings up a good point.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

There's quite a lot he could do, just with a veto stamp. But especially on foreign policy. And the difference between him and pretenders like Obama is, he'd actually do it.

But how do you use a veto stamp to (as in my instance) make marijuana legal?

I need a refresher course, I've been out of school for 35 years. Do Presidents present bills?

The President can propose legislation, but he can not sponsor legislation and get the process started. Though, I'm curious if the VP serving as the president of the Senate could do that...

 

[dblack]

Which brings up a good point.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

There's quite a lot he could do, just with a veto stamp. But especially on foreign policy. And the difference between him and pretenders like Obama is, he'd actually do it.

But how do you use a veto stamp to (as in my instance) make marijuana legal?

I need a refresher course, I've been out of school for 35 years. Do Presidents present bills?

No, and I'm not saying there aren't very real limits to what he could do. But that still leaves a lot of room to change things for the better. The point is, he would do it. He isn't beholden to special interests and he avoid 'entangling alliances' in politics just as he would in foreign policy.

 

[Google]

0 chance.

So we should just keep electing the puppets, even though they keep fucking us.

And then we'll elect a puppet from the opposite party next time around to get a little 'change', even though we know that one will fuck us too.

It's cool, because each time around we have the other party to choose from to get back at the current one for fucking us!

I'll try again.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

Can you respond without ranting? I really want to know if he could prevail, despite Congress likely lockstepping against him.

Here is exactly what would happen:

We would find out just exactly what the republicans in congress are really made of.

If they blocked all his efforts, then they'd be exposed as the liberals that most of them actually are. But I'd imagine they'd go along with a lot more than they'd oppose.

And I would think he'd probably get more support from dems than any republican president in recent memory. Dems see eye to eye with him on more issues than your average republican, socially at least.

I think you are wrong about him receiving Democrat support. In fact, I think they would wage an all out offensive again a Paul administration. IF Paul gets the nomination get ready to see the most dirty campaign against him. He will be declared a racists, anti-Semite...you'll see.

 

[BDBoop]

There's quite a lot he could do, just with a veto stamp. But especially on foreign policy. And the difference between him and pretenders like Obama is, he'd actually do it.

But how do you use a veto stamp to (as in my instance) make marijuana legal?

I need a refresher course, I've been out of school for 35 years. Do Presidents present bills?

No, and I'm not saying there aren't very real limits to what he could do. But that still leaves a lot of room to change things for the better. The point is, he would do it. He isn't beholden to special interests and he avoid 'entangling alliances' in politics just as he would in foreign policy.

That was actually my backburner next question. How has he avoided being beholden to anybody?

 

[BDBoop]

I'll try again.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

Can you respond without ranting? I really want to know if he could prevail, despite Congress likely lockstepping against him.

Here is exactly what would happen:

We would find out just exactly what the republicans in congress are really made of.

If they blocked all his efforts, then they'd be exposed as the liberals that most of them actually are. But I'd imagine they'd go along with a lot more than they'd oppose.

And I would think he'd probably get more support from dems than any republican president in recent memory. Dems see eye to eye with him on more issues than your average republican, socially at least.

I think you are wrong about him receiving Democrat support. In fact, I think they would wage an all out offensive again a Paul administration. IF Paul gets the nomination get ready to see the most dirty campaign against him. He will be declared a racists, anti-Semite...you'll see.

Oh, some - of course. But I AM democrat, and I'm very interested in what I've heard thus far. The smears have to be set aside.

 

[Paulie]

I'll try again.

Say Paul was elected. What is the chance he could accomplish Absolutely Anything, with the DC status quo?

Can you respond without ranting? I really want to know if he could prevail, despite Congress likely lockstepping against him.

Here is exactly what would happen:

We would find out just exactly what the republicans in congress are really made of.

If they blocked all his efforts, then they'd be exposed as the liberals that most of them actually are. But I'd imagine they'd go along with a lot more than they'd oppose.

And I would think he'd probably get more support from dems than any republican president in recent memory. Dems see eye to eye with him on more issues than your average republican, socially at least.

I think you are wrong about him receiving Democrat support. In fact, I think they would wage an all out offensive again a Paul administration. IF Paul gets the nomination get ready to see the most dirty campaign against him. He will be declared a racists, anti-Semite...you'll see.

The question was not what would happen during the campaign, it was what would happen if he were president.

 

[Paulie]

But how do you use a veto stamp to (as in my instance) make marijuana legal?

I need a refresher course, I've been out of school for 35 years. Do Presidents present bills?

No, and I'm not saying there aren't very real limits to what he could do. But that still leaves a lot of room to change things for the better. The point is, he would do it. He isn't beholden to special interests and he avoid 'entangling alliances' in politics just as he would in foreign policy.

That was actually my backburner next question. How has he avoided being beholden to anybody?

Well, here's an example...

His son Rand took the help of Mitch McConnell during his run for senate, which now means that theoretically, Rand owes the establishment something in return.

Not the case with Ron.

 

[BDBoop]

No, and I'm not saying there aren't very real limits to what he could do. But that still leaves a lot of room to change things for the better. The point is, he would do it. He isn't beholden to special interests and he avoid 'entangling alliances' in politics just as he would in foreign policy.

That was actually my backburner next question. How has he avoided being beholden to anybody?

Well, here's an example...

His son Rand took the help of Mitch McConnell during his run for senate, which now means that theoretically, Rand owes the establishment something in return.

Not the case with Ron.

Oh, look. Both my eyeballs landed in the same socket, what with all the rolling.

I'm so tired of special interest groups and lobbyists.

 

[Synthaholic]

How does this issue show that he's incapable of dealing with the entire world?

Because it's not even an "issue". Ron Paul allowed it to become an issue. Chris Matthews is a pundit and an advocate.

It should have been easy to brush this whole thing aside. But instead Ron Paul insists on drawing lines in the sand. That's ridiculous.

How do you think that would work on the world stage? Because really..the most important task of the President of the United States is to deal with the rest of the world.

I could just imagine him closing off trade with China because they don't have "a free market economy".

You're right it's not an issue, but Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews know that Ron and Rand Paul will tell the truth so they make it an issue so that they can paint them as racists.

If you think Ron Paul would close off trade with China then you don't know him at all. Ron Paul is for completely free trade with everyone. It's the interventionists who want to go around drawing lines in the sand with foreign governments, not Ron Paul.

You've said that at least three times now, and it's still not true!

 

[dblack]

That was actually my backburner next question. How has he avoided being beholden to anybody?

Tactically, I have no idea. But he has. He votes independently, on principle, on nearly every single issue. Ironically, it exactly his stubborn refusal to go with the flow that has earned him his reputation as a nut. He's earned the nickname 'Dr. No' in the House because if his tendency to go against the grain. I don't think he'd have any reluctance to do so as president if he felt it was warranted.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're right it's not an issue, but Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews know that Ron and Rand Paul will tell the truth so they make it an issue so that they can paint them as racists.

If you think Ron Paul would close off trade with China then you don't know him at all. Ron Paul is for completely free trade with everyone. It's the interventionists who want to go around drawing lines in the sand with foreign governments, not Ron Paul.

Seriously you aren't talking to someone who "hates" Ron Paul. And neither, I suppose does Maddow or Matthews. But if it was that easy for them to get both Pauls to paint themselves into a corner..how do you think it's going to go on an international stage? The world is a wild and wooly place.

I don't want to see a Nader or Kuncinch presidency for very much the same reason. While I like Ron Paul's stance on many things..I recognize that as President..you MUST be flexible.

And I don't see that in Ron Paul.

Maybe they don't hate Ron Paul, but they have no problem painting him as a racist.

That's FOUR!

 

[dblack]

Well, here's an example...

His son Rand took the help of Mitch McConnell during his run for senate, which now means that theoretically, Rand owes the establishment something in return.

Not the case with Ron.

yeah.. those kinds of decisions by Rand give me pause. I can't give him the kind of blanket endorsement I'm willing to do with his dad.

 

[Paulie]

That was actually my backburner next question. How has he avoided being beholden to anybody?

Well, here's an example...

His son Rand took the help of Mitch McConnell during his run for senate, which now means that theoretically, Rand owes the establishment something in return.

Not the case with Ron.

Oh, look. Both my eyeballs landed in the same socket, what with all the rolling.

I'm so tired of special interest groups and lobbyists.

To be fair though, to my knowledge, Paul has never been offered that kind of help from the establishment.

Rand wasn't offered it until he was at the point where he appeared he could win the republican nomination in the KY senate race.

If Ron somehow started gaining ground even more in the polls and challenged the field for the top spot, all bets could be off in that department. I have no idea if he'd accept that help or not considering he knows what caveats would be attached to it.

 

[Google]

Here is exactly what would happen:

We would find out just exactly what the republicans in congress are really made of.

If they blocked all his efforts, then they'd be exposed as the liberals that most of them actually are. But I'd imagine they'd go along with a lot more than they'd oppose.

And I would think he'd probably get more support from dems than any republican president in recent memory. Dems see eye to eye with him on more issues than your average republican, socially at least.

I think you are wrong about him receiving Democrat support. In fact, I think they would wage an all out offensive again a Paul administration. IF Paul gets the nomination get ready to see the most dirty campaign against him. He will be declared a racists, anti-Semite...you'll see.

The question was not what would happen during the campaign, it was what would happen if he were president.

And if he was elected they would behave just the same.

I understand what you are saying. I had a conversation with a liberal friend of mine the other day and I proposed the question to him after he said he believed Paul was sincere, more than Obama, in his promise to end our numerous foreign conflicts: "wouldn't it be worth it for Paul to win just to have that one thing accomplished", to which he said, and of course I am paraphrasing, he wants to let the rich run this country, he wants to kill the poor, ect, ect.

You don't understand how diametrically opposed the progressive left is to the libertarian message of Paul. The left isn't truly anti-war. If they were we'd still be seeing the same type of fanatical protests that wee saw under Bush.

They would go after Paul worse than they ever did Bush.

 

[Paulie]

Well, here's an example...

His son Rand took the help of Mitch McConnell during his run for senate, which now means that theoretically, Rand owes the establishment something in return.

Not the case with Ron.

yeah.. those kinds of decisions by Rand give me pause. I can't give him the kind of blanket endorsement I'm willing to do with his dad.

Hey, who knows. That might have been the biggest reason Rand won. It doesn't HAVE to mean he owes them ANYTHING.

If he snaked them, he'd probably lose that support in the reelection, but by then his performance and record alone could be enough, as it has always been with his father.