posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
How can we possibly know the likelihoods? People seem to think that the stuff they support will surely get passed (Repeal ObamaCare, The
Patriot Act and stop the war on drugs) but they're just certain that this Sanctity of Life Act and some of his other drastic (and possibly immediate)
items on his agenda, won't get passed anyway, so nothing to worry about.
On what do you base the likelihood that something will pass or fail?
Well, I'd personally suggest looking at the number of co-sponsors as well as the popular resistance and political climate otherwise as a good
I would have placed a very small likelihood on the idea that The Patriot Act would be extended time and time again by several different
Congresses under different parties, but I was really wrong about that. I don't have much faith that Congress would NOW vote to repeal it. What makes
it more likely to be repealed under a Paul presidency? What makes it unlikely that his Sanctity of Life Act will NOT?
Well, honestly I never expected them not to keep passing/extending it, so we've got to say I have a better track record than you do on that one.
As to the extensions and why it would be repealed under Paul - the president has to sign the extensions into law, no? Do you really expect Paul
would? But you expect the Sanctity of Life Act to get reintroduced and somehow pass the House and the Senate? I will say the odds are definitely in
my favor on both counts, from any realistic assessment.
This is the reason his desire to legislate morality and in effect REMOVE freedoms that we now have, scares me. And even though I have no horse
in the abortion race, as I am anti-abortion (I wouldn't have one unless it threatened my health), I am also pro-choice. My pro-choice stance is BASED
on the concept of freedom. REAL freedom, where I support the rights of others, even though I disagree with them.
And that's definitely honorable:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
But as I mentioned earlier on the thread, how on earth can we weigh such unlikely odds to continue to give indirect tacit approval to leaders and
enablers who have put in place such offensive overreaches of power and abuses of liberty, and who show all indication of continuing to do so?
I don't mean to beat dead horses, but a big part of my concern it what presidents DO have the power to do directly, and Paul is one of the only
options I can see with an serious intention to make right steps on many very important issues (while being limited by presidential authority and a
resistant congress to most of his thoughts that otherwise bother people). End the wars, don't approve unjust laws, direct the DOJ to stop giving
states and people a hard time, pardon the non-violent, and so on.
His more 'radical' views would of necessity be externally tempered, and I have no doubt he would work to right the wrongs no one else seems all that
Just my personal thoughts, of course.