Presidential expectations?

[revelarts]

Several people, Have expressed that they think I'm a bit over the top in my expectations of what Ron Paul could do as President.
Abbey asked me a similar question -nicely- I might add thanks Abbey.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Abbey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=520968#post520968)

Rev, I have a sincere question: Do you disagree with any of Ron Paul's policies/platform/beliefs?





http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Revelarts
Yes I do, It'd take a while to run through the details but I'm not gung ho on the whole gold standard thing. I'd go slow on the Harder drugs legalization. I don't think the Free markets is enough of a regulator and that there does need to be federal regs in some areas, and I think he could push harder on the pro life front, I think it is a federal issue not a just a state issue. There are other things but his major points, the budget, really bringing home the troops, the wars, the fed, reining in outta control homeland faux security, burn dept of education, the IRS, Just respecting the constitution and the bill of rights in away that makes the Washington elites lose their bowels and rank n file Ds & Rs think seriously, I'm there 100%




Ron Paul has made some HUGE claims as to what he like to get done as President.
What are my expectations.
Well in general I'd Expect that he'd TRY to do everything he's proposed. Many people has created a caricature of what he's really proposed however so they may think "he's not doing what he said".
for example he does not like any medical subsidies but he would not attempt to completely gut medicare and medicaid out of the gate, hed continue it and allow younger folks and the rich to opt out.

But in general here's the thing, one has to ask what powers does the president have and what powers do the other branches have. From there you can start to see what, out of his proposal that he can do without any consultation.

He can order the troops home from every battlefield. He can do that without any hesitation. He can order the military other alphabets of gov't to stop protecting Drug growers and smugglers overseas. He can close Gitmo and Bagram torture bases. As head of the executive branch he can whittle down whole depts to bare bones and delete ANY non congressional mandated regulations and rules that have UNCONSTITUTIONALLY been create by the executive branches depts.. He can repeal/recend decades of unconstitutional executive orders. Pardon all non violent drug offenders from federal prisons. how much money will that save? He can veto renewals of the sunseted portions of the patriot act. He could get a justice dept head that would prosecute the fast and furious case and other cases.

What can he do with congress?
Well for starters he can veto every unbalanced budget that hits his desk, veto every bailout, Veto every new unconstitutional attack on our liberty.

Getting his budget through would be the trick, for sure. I'm not sure how congress would even come close to doing what he's proposed without a lot of pressure from the people to just get it done. It might not happen.

here's and outline of what he wants
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

He wants to take the income tax down to Zero
here's what a WJS economist said about that
"
Stephen Moore:
"This is a point Ron Paul made very effectively last night, which was for the first roughly 130 or 140 years of our nation we didn’t have an income tax, and yet we did have a prosperous country, we got richer every year, and so there’s no reason we can’t imagine what America would be like without an income tax.

As an economist, can you imagine America’s competitive position in the world if Ron Paul were able to get our income tax rate down to zero, when other countries have 30, 40, 50% rates… you would see the most insourcing of jobs into America in the history of the world."


I think as president he could get public support from ALL sectors all groups for that. rich and poor would love that. only a few socialist minded types would be pissed. And he could shame the congress into getting it done. But I'd expect them to add posion pills to the legislation though. but hopfully that would backfire.

I could add more but that's the gist of it.

If he had 4 years it would be an interesting ride. Just what he could do on the executive side is exciting to me at least. And to have prez that actuality believes in the constitution would be novel.



if all your going to do is say "he can't win" don't bother. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what I'd expect him to be able to do while prez.

[pegwinn]

First and foremost, the President is supposed to be a leader. And, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, his leadership needs to be held to a higher standard than mere civilian managers have to aspire to.

Boy that sounded snotty and superior huh? Yeppers, that's because if the President is not supposed to be a mere mortal. He is supposed to set the example. He is supposed to be the guy you would trust to guard your back in a convoy, on patrol, or in a bar fight. If I don't trust him enough to go to war with him, then I don't trust his biometrically scanned pointers on the nuclear button.

So far not a one of the candidates lives up to my expectations.

And, elitist or not, I have a real hard time voting for anyone who isn't a vet.

[revelarts]

First and foremost, the President is supposed to be a leader. And, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, his leadership needs to be held to a higher standard than mere civilian managers have to aspire to.

Boy that sounded snotty and superior huh? Yeppers, that's because if the President is not supposed to be a mere mortal. He is supposed to set the example. He is supposed to be the guy you would trust to guard your back in a convoy, on patrol, or in a bar fight. If I don't trust him enough to go to war with him, then I don't trust his biometrically scanned pointers on the nuclear button.

So far not a one of the candidates lives up to my expectations.

And, elitist or not, I have a real hard time voting for anyone who isn't a vet.

Ron Paul's a vet.
But that's kind of a bad standard. throws the whole civilian leadership of the military idea the FF's had out the window.
Sheesh, can't vote for a "civilian" America must have a... Warlord ... we are a marshal nation i guess.
wow... Professional "standing" armies really are a bad idea, the founders were right again.

maybe i'm reading to much into it though.

[pegwinn]

Ron Paul's a vet.
But that's kind of a bad standard. throws the whole civilian leadership of the military idea the FF's had out the window.
Sheesh, can't vote for a "civilian" America must have a... Warlord ... we are a marshal nation i guess.
wow... Professional "standing" armies really are a bad idea, the founders were right again.

maybe i'm reading to much into it though.

Actually it is a great standard. The military leader is taught, indoctrinated actually, to lead from a core of character traits and principles that are steeped in honor and tradition. He or she is taught to put the mission first and keep their subordinates welfare close at all times. But, the first lesson taught to every new Corporal is that he or she is responsible for everything done or not done withing their realm of authority. Personal Accountability would be an awesome thing for our corrupted political class to learn wouldn't it?

Not every military leader is perfect by any means. But, body-for-body, I will trust them to do the right things far more often than I trust our elected officials.

As to the founding fathers ideas..... pffft. They demonstrated that they wanted firm military oriented leadership by selecting one General Washington to be the "civilian" in control.

You are correct that we are a martial nation. It is a simple fact of life that there will be conflict. If there is going to be a fight would you rather a boxer or a beer bellied fight fan be in charge?

Isn't it interesting that the only veteran in the bunch of GOPers is the one that least desires to deploy the .mil?

[revelarts]

good response
:2up:


Actually it is a great standard. The military leader is taught, indoctrinated actually, to lead from a core of character traits and principles that are steeped in honor and tradition. He or she is taught to put the mission first and keep their subordinates welfare close at all times. But, the first lesson taught to every new Corporal is that he or she is responsible for everything done or not done withing their realm of authority. Personal Accountability would be an awesome thing for our corrupted political class to learn wouldn't it?

Those are awesome qualities to teach, i learned them at home with my father and church.




Not every military leader is perfect by any means. But, body-for-body, I will trust them to do the right things far more often than I trust our elected officials.
I try not to trust men/women based mainly on the uniforms they wear or the titles they hold in or out of the military. Their words and actions tell me more. I always hope that people will live up to high standards but i don't assume it.
but i have to say at this point I'd switch -body-for-body- the people wandering any local supermarket for our elected officials.



As to the founding fathers ideas..... pffft. They demonstrated that they wanted firm military oriented leadership by selecting one General Washington to be the "civilian" in control.
Interesting George Washington had no formal military training, the character he tried to instill in the military that's trickled down to today came from his own home training, faith and moral standards. Not from any martial codes. the next few presidents where FFs as well and I think only 1 had combat experience. And were apposed to military leadership it as well. Washingtons men tried to crown him king and over history many matial thinking generals took the biat of power but thankfully Washington was not thinking like a military conqueror and more like a man that loved liberty. And some historians think that that incident is 1 of the reasons why there is no constitutional provision for standing armies but for citizen militias.
But you know there's something about people and the way we socialize that we seem to want a strong good "king". the people of old Israel did too, when GOD is suppose to be our king, Our president is suppose to be an administrator 1st and in times of conflict the CiC.



You are correct that we are a martial nation. It is a simple fact of life that there will be conflict. If there is going to be a fight would you rather a boxer or a beer bellied fight fan be in charge?
"there will be conflict" sadly yes however do we have to fight at every threat of a conflict? China hasn't been at war in years Switzerland hasn't either. both are armed and prepared to fight, I'd like to believe that we could one day think of ourselves more like that than ready to hop a plane to every sore spot in the world and drop bombs and kill to protect our so call safety or "our" resources. Sure we need to be ready to fight but we need to be ready for peace and have that set as our default. No one want an personally undisiplined slob as a leader of anything, not even a restaurant. However you assume that military or military men need to be IN CHARGE to deal with conflict rather than AT HAND. Any wise leader when faced with a military conflict will rely on the wisdom of those that have studied and prepared for it as a career.




Isn't it interesting that the only veteran in the bunch of GOPers is the one that least desires to deploy the .mil?
Yes it's true, many military are the last the to want to go to war. that's something that bears a lot of consideration. I'm not sure how much of Paul's motivation is based on his military experience but I'm sure that part of it, another part is his respect for the constitution and the FFs admonishments against it.


but here's a quote from Madison on the war and standing armies
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

[ConHog]

good response
:2up:



Those are awesome qualities to teach, i learned them at home with my father and church.



I try not to trust men/women based mainly on the uniforms they wear or the titles they hold in or out of the military. Their words and actions tell me more. I always hope that people will live up to high standards but i don't assume it.
but i have to say at this point I'd switch -body-for-body- the people wandering any local supermarket for our elected officials.


Interesting George Washington had no formal military training, the character he tried to instill in the military that's trickled down to today came from his own home training, faith and moral standards. Not from any martial codes. the next few presidents where FFs as well and I think only 1 had combat experience. And were apposed to military leadership it as well. Washingtons men tried to crown him king and over history many matial thinking generals took the biat of power but thankfully Washington was not thinking like a military conqueror and more like a man that loved liberty. And some historians think that that incident is 1 of the reasons why there is no constitutional provision for standing armies but for citizen militias.
But you know there's something about people and the way we socialize that we seem to want a strong good "king". the people of old Israel did too, when GOD is suppose to be our king, Our president is suppose to be an administrator 1st and in times of conflict the CiC.


"there will be conflict" sadly yes however do we have to fight at every threat of a conflict? China hasn't been at war in years Switzerland hasn't either. both are armed and prepared to fight, I'd like to believe that we could one day think of ourselves more like that than ready to hop a plane to every sore spot in the world and drop bombs and kill to protect our so call safety or "our" resources. Sure we need to be ready to fight but we need to be ready for peace and have that set as our default. No one want an personally undisiplined slob as a leader of anything, not even a restaurant. However you assume that military or military men need to be IN CHARGE to deal with conflict rather than AT HAND. Any wise leader when faced with a military conflict will rely on the wisdom of those that have studied and prepared for it as a career.



Yes it's true, many military are the last the to want to go to war. that's something that bears a lot of consideration. I'm not sure how much of Paul's motivation is based on his military experience but I'm sure that part of it, another part is his respect for the constitution and the FFs admonishments against it.


but here's a quote from Madison on the war and standing armies
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."



Peg made a great point. Those who have fought are the least likely to enter into another battle lightly. However, they are also the most likely to believe in carrying a big stick and beating the shit out of someone with it when you MUST go to war. That is where RP fails. He wants to give our stick away and trust the bullies won't be back.

[revelarts]

Peg made a great point. Those who have fought are the least likely to enter into another battle lightly. However, they are also the most likely to believe in carrying a big stick and beating the shit out of someone with it when you MUST go to war. That is where RP fails. He wants to give our stick away and trust the bullies won't be back.
:rolleyes:
wrong

[jimnyc]

Peg made a great point. Those who have fought are the least likely to enter into another battle lightly. However, they are also the most likely to believe in carrying a big stick and beating the shit out of someone with it when you MUST go to war. That is where RP fails. He wants to give our stick away and trust the bullies won't be back.

Say something supportive of RP, and you'll get a lengthy reply. Say the TRUTH about him, or something perceived as negative, and you'll get a one word reply OR get your posts ignored entirely. There is good news though, the old fucker is only on the trail for comedic relief and has a better chance of growing wings and flying into the superbowl than he does at getting elected. Hell, I'll go as far as to say that RP couldn't even win a single primary, let alone the presidency!

[ConHog]

:rolleyes:
wrong

Not wrong. In fact, I suspect the fact that he would greatly reduce our military is the only reason you are so gaga over him.

[revelarts]

Say something supportive of RP, and you'll get a lengthy reply. Say the TRUTH about him, or something perceived as negative, and you'll get a one word reply OR get your posts ignored entirely. There is good news though, the old fucker is only on the trail for comedic relief and has a better chance of growing wings and flying into the superbowl than he does at getting elected. Hell, I'll go as far as to say that RP couldn't even win a single primary, let alone the presidency!

ummm Go to my ron paul and foreign policy thread for details Jimbo.

but uh, when I made negative points about Gingrinch in another thread the answers i was given were things LIKE
" I don't think he'll do that" "he's not perfect" " and "your characterization of newt is Spin" "anyone can pick bad votes from 20 years of voting" and that's about it.
not much more than one word and not any defense of anything save Nafda.

I don't see you saying jack about those posters replies, why are u following me around dude C---Blocking my post.
go get a sandwich dude take a freaking break.

[revelarts]

Not wrong. In fact, I suspect the fact that he would greatly reduce our military is the only reason you are so gaga over him.
read the 1st post and my other post and you'll get a broader picture ConH.
but suspect or assume what you want, seems that happen a lot around here.
Don't the military use the expression "don't assume becuase you make an ASS-out-of-U-and-ME" anymore though.

[ConHog]

read the 1st post and my other post and you'll get a broader picture ConH.
but suspect or assume what you want, seems that happen a lot around here.
Don't the military use the expression "don't assume becuase you make an ASS-out-of-U-and-ME" anymore though.

Suspect =/= assume.

[jimnyc]

ummm Go to my ron paul and foreign policy thread for details Jimbo.

but uh, when I made negative points about Gingrinch in another thread the answers i was given were things LIKE
" I don't think he'll do that" "he's not perfect" " and "your characterization of newt is Spin" "anyone can pick bad votes from 20 years of voting" and that's about it.
not much more than one word and not any defense of anything save Nafda.

I don't see you saying jack about those posters replies, why are u following me around dude C---Blocking my post.
go get a sandwich dude take a freaking break.

Why do I care about what others have said to you? I base my communication as what you say, and what I say. I don't say anything to them, as they can objectively look at all the candidates and see bad and good with each one of them. You see one candidate as your messiah and the rest as the devils children. Your such a hack for RP that it's kind of funny, cute in a way, like a crush of sorts.

[revelarts]

Why do I care about what others have said to you? I base my communication as what you say, and what I say. I don't say anything to them, as they can objectively look at all the candidates and see bad and good with each one of them. You see one candidate as your messiah and the rest as the devils children. Your such a hack for RP that it's kind of funny, cute in a way, like a crush of sorts.

It's your crush on me that's kinda creepy Jim.

[jimnyc]

It's your crush on me that's kinda creepy Jim.

I wouldn't consider mine a crush, as I'm not fawning over anything like you do with Ron Paul. You can possibly accuse me of discrimination though, as I do tend to pick solely on idiocy. :coffee:

[ConHog]

It's your crush on me that's kinda creepy Jim.

Really dude? Let's see the count is 50 threads about RP started by you and ZERO threads about you started by Jim.

You better be careful, if RP ever does manage to grab a delegate the Secret Service may take him as a serious candidate and provide protection to him and they might not look kindly on your fatal attraction level crush.

[revelarts]

pssssigh

[jimnyc]

I sent Revelarts a PM apologizing top him for continually badgering him, or trolling him, in several threads. I got a little wound up on the Ron Paul threads and decided to rub it in, and I suppose piss Rev off a bit by offering my negative opinions, but in a manner meant to poke at him.

I wanted to make my apology public, as I think it's deserving for Rev. And quite frankly, if you're willing to try and embarrass or one up the guy posting on the board, you should be able to man up and admit you're wrong just as freely.

So my bad, I'm sorry Rev, and you again have my apologies.

[ConHog]

I sent Revelarts a PM apologizing top him for continually badgering him, or trolling him, in several threads. I got a little wound up on the Ron Paul threads and decided to rub it in, and I suppose piss Rev off a bit by offering my negative opinions, but in a manner meant to poke at him.

I wanted to make my apology public, as I think it's deserving for Rev. And quite frankly, if you're willing to try and embarrass or one up the guy posting on the board, you should be able to man up and admit you're wrong just as freely.

So my bad, I'm sorry Rev, and you again have my apologies.

A) ban yourself for discussing PMs

B) I thought we determined that internet apologies were silly?

:pee:

[jimnyc]

A) ban yourself for discussing PMs

B) I thought we determined that internet apologies were silly?

:pee:

A) Eat
B) Shit

[ConHog]

A) Eat
B) Shit

I'm not dealing with what's in your underpants Jim.

[pegwinn]

Peg made a great point. Those who have fought are the least likely to enter into another battle lightly. However, they are also the most likely to believe in carrying a big stick and beating the shit out of someone with it when you MUST go to war. That is where RP fails. He wants to give our stick away and trust the bullies won't be back.

Actually I think RP would do it like I would in that position. I'd pull our people back to the USA and maybe the nations where we have a binding mutual defense treaty. But, in Phils USA, it would be PAX AMERICA. If you fucked with an American citizen anywhere, I reserve the right to lay waste to the country side and leave it for dead.

I think you and many others are confusing kindness, and restraint, with weakness. I could be wrong. But it's the only conclusion I can draw when so many so-called conservatives are engaged in a perpetual case of "I got a bigger dick than you" when it comes to power projection.


Say something supportive of RP, and you'll get a lengthy reply. Say the TRUTH about him, or something perceived as negative, and you'll get a one word reply OR get your posts ignored entirely. There is good news though, the old fucker is only on the trail for comedic relief and has a better chance of growing wings and flying into the superbowl than he does at getting elected. Hell, I'll go as far as to say that RP couldn't even win a single primary, let alone the presidency!

I won't speak for the Rev by any means. But, you actually have noticed one side effect of continuous ridicule. The people who've taken the time to at least try to understand the positions and history of Ron Paul are so used to him being marginalized at best. Because of that ridicule a hair trigger becomes a natural defense. With everyone else you expect and accept that they are lowlifes that should be in jail, no names but it rhymes with Gingrich. What pisses you off is when the exception to all that appears to come along and he gets no respect.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/389Kk5tuQBI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/389Kk5tuQBI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>