It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Will Ron Paul Save the World?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


But to actually accomplish his goal of shrinking the government he's going to need the cooperation of Congress. If he just sits in the Oval Office doing nothing while Congress goes on business as usual he's just going to look weak and ineffective to the majority of the population. One of the big reasons I see people cite for liking him as a candidate is that he will fix the economy. How will he enact any of measures for accomplishing this without the help of Congress? Instead it will just look like he isn't doing anything to fix it. And if he can't achieve any of his goals what's the point in voting for him?




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
So nobody has an actual answer? It doesn't make a difference if Ron Paul simply talks about change, he actually needs to enact change. So how can Ron Paul be an effective President and achieve his goals when the entirety of Congress would be against him?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


It's not that RP can actually save the world himself, but he could inspire those who come after to become honest leaders, and not puppets...If people begin to emulate the honesty portion, instead of being the puppet everything would be much better. But politicians are afraid of getting whacked if they don't do what the elite says to do...We need strong leaders who aren't afraid not cowards...Hopefully RP could paint that model regardless if he wins or loses...



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
So nobody has an actual answer? It doesn't make a difference if Ron Paul simply talks about change, he actually needs to enact change. So how can Ron Paul be an effective President and achieve his goals when the entirety of Congress would be against him?


It doesn't surprise me that most people don't have an answer, because most people apparently really don't understand the government and the way it is structured and powers distributed. Maybe some of those people shouldn't be voting.

But anyway, if you want my opinion which is based on the powers of the executive branch, then Ron Paul can do a great deal, which is actually why TPTB and the media are terrified he will get elected because for four years at least and potentially longer he can make business as usual in Washington very difficult.

How?

Well, first of all as commander in chief of the armed forces; he is actually the supreme commander of the military and though constitutionally congress must declare war, once war is declared the commander in chief actually has final say over the strategies, troop movements and supplies of the military. Including even ordering many of those troops to come home, which is one main thing Ron Paul wants to do.

Second, it is the president who appoints a lot of positions in the executive and even the judicial branch of government and that has great deal of effect and with the judicial nominations that effect can actually last far after the president's terms are over. I would say if Ron Paul happens to get to appoint a judge to the supreme court I wager that judge will be like him a strict constitutionalists.

And, finally and I would say most importantly, he will have veto power. Which may not seem like much to people, but it actually is pretty important. He at the very least can veto every single unconstitutional bill that comes down the pike and though, congress can override the veto with a two thirds vote, at the very least it slows congress down and insures a great many of the horrible bills they pass will not get passed while Ron Paul is there. That is one thing that I don't hear people mentioning when they say that congress will make him a lame duck president and that is Ron Paul as president has the ability to make a lame duck congress or at least a hamstrung one. I say that is the greatest effect of all and something we as a nation really need right now; a president that will serve as a road block to the out of control and out of touch congress that is spending spending spending us into further debt and constantly passing horrible, detrimental and useless legislation. In fact I would say if Ron Paul does become president he will probably become one of the presidents with the highest rate of vetoes ever and will metaphorically wear the veto stamp out.

And really what is wrong with a president who will do all in his power to slow the out of control congress down if not stop them, isn't that what many of us want and actually what our nation needs? I say that a president that can roadblock congress and slow their agenda down has more value right now then even a president that can get their own agendas done.



edit on 3-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

edit on 3-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

edit on 3-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

edit on 3-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Look at the alternatives, though. Really. Would Obamney be any better?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


Excellent post. But there's more. The executive branch is over the:

•Department of Agriculture (USDA)
•Department of Commerce (DOC)
•Department of Defense (DOD)
•Department of Education (ED)
•Department of Energy (DOE)
•Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
•Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
•Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
•Department of Justice (DOJ)
•Department of Labor (DOL)
•Department of State (DOS)
•Department of the Interior (DOI)
•Department of the Treasury
•Department of Transportation (DOT)
•Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

I don't remember which five he said would be eliminated, but it is within the president's authority to do so with any of them. To my knowledge, he hasn't specified what he would recommend once they were eliminated, but one assumes those agency's duties would be relegated to the states if they chose to replace them.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


The only way I can see him even remotely accomplishing anything is bypassing Congress through executive orders. Of course that would go against his beliefs and is one of the reasons his supporters have so much beef with Obama.


If he has such a problem with executive orders, couldn't he just repeal prior executive orders rather than creating new ones?

couldn't he as Commander-in-Chief order US troops to return home?
edit on 3-5-2012 by kalisdad because: put my questions in your quote... fixed



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 

Interesting and worthwhile OP, and your response is just as interesting. I would like to differ with you on a couple of points, however.

Stopping Congress is neither entirely possible or even that useful. Let's take the most obvious case, the budget. Assume that the Congress is opposed to Ron Paul. They could pass a budget containing anything they wanted, or any level of spending. Ron Paul's choices? Negotiate, surrender, or shut down the government and the country (eventually) with it. Which does he pick? I would wager negotiate. Would his current supporters then call him a traitor or a sell-out?

Further, many of the bad laws we have must be reversed. In some cases that will require legislation which he may not get through Congress. Leaving the current laws in place cannot be kept up, according to the GAO.

And because some laws have to be reversed, I think you haven't paid quite enough attention to the Supreme Court appointments. If the Congress isn't on your side, how else can you do it? Declaring a law unconstitutional eliminates it as completely as a congressional vote. Beside, that would probably be his most significant legacy.

And really what is wrong with a president who will do all in his power to slow the out of control congress down if not stop them, isn't that what many of us want and actually what our nation needs? I say that a president that can roadblock congress and slow their agenda down has more value right now then even a president that can get their own agendas done.
What is wrong with slowing an out of control Congress is that it's not enough. Things have to be reversed. We need, I believe, to start that reversal as soon as possible. Slowing things down only means that the problems still get worse, just not as quickly as they might have.

As an aside, I don't know where my vote is going this fall.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Ron Paul isn't gonna save the world. Not that the world needs saving, its in the same turmoil that its always been in. I'm voting for him because I believe in his policies and hopefully based on my research and only self-searching ect ect through those policies the world is a better off.

I'm sure a good number of people saying "last chance" or "Will save us all" are exaggerating. Those that aren't though are going to be disappointed when they find that exceptions they set on the man don't come through. Though will prolly blame it one the Illuminati or lizard people whatever... Conspiracy website 'member?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


You're right that the President has supreme authority over the troops. What he doesn't have control over though is the closure of bases. That requires approval by Congress. So he could bring as many troops as he wanted back home but it wouldn't save any money as the foreign bases would still need to be maintained.

As for the veto power do you really think it using it every chance he got would get the public on his side? Even now when the legislative branch gets nothing done people blame the President. Do you think that will change when the President's detractors can easily make the argument that nothing is getting done because the President is vetoing everything? If Paul actually wants to create some kind of change in the government he will have to do more than act as a stopgap measure. He will actually have to enact change or he will end up getting even more hate than Obama.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


From what I can find the President has no authority over the creation or dissolution over government agencies. That is another power that falls squarely into the hands of Congress.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


The funny thing is, a lot of the things Ron Paul would like to do, he can not do without Congress. Just like most of the nonsense Obama and Romney claim they will do, they can not do either without Congress.

One thing Paul can do without Congress..... bring our troops home. He can get out of Iraq, he can get out of Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Germany, and all the other Countries we have positioned ourselves in. He can bring home every service man and women, every piece of hardware, and every single missile.

Can Paul legalize drugs? Probably not.

Can he abolish abortion? Probably not.

Can the end the Fed overnight? No he can not.

Can he wipe away some of the draconian Executive Orders? Yes he can.

Bring troops home? Yes he can

Will it have a direct effect on our economy? Yes it will

Can he direct troops to and secure our boarders? Yes he can.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Except the main cost in having troops abroad is maintaining the bases. He does not have the authority to close them. So even if he orders all the troops home we're still paying their salaries and the cost to maintain foreign bases. So while it does serve to get the troops home it does not achieve his goal of saving money.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by frazzle
 


From what I can find the President has no authority over the creation or dissolution over government agencies. That is another power that falls squarely into the hands of Congress.


For example, if President Paul called for defunding the patriot act and cutting homeland security/TSA, how do you think the people would react to a congress that voted against it? If defunding other executive agencies meant less taxes and more jobs in the states, how do you think the people would react to a congressional refusal to do so? Those guys know where their approval ratings stand right now and they would have a choice, be heroes or get the boot.

I don't claim to know exactly what he could do or could not do, but then apparently neither does anyone else, but all these waste ridden departments listed above are part of the president's cabinet.

And we do know what we'd get with a second term for Obama or his other brother Romney.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


You forget that people have been indoctrinated over the past ten years to think that the TSA and the Patriot Act keep us safe. While they may annoy people it won't take much more than pointing out there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 to convince people that they are necessary safety measures.

As for the governmental agencies, the one that sticks out in my mind as one he wants to dissolve is the Department of Education. If Paul went onto national television and the told the people of America that he wanted to get rid of the Department of Education most would think he hates children. It doesn't matter how much money it would save them because most would see that as an attack on their children.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by frazzle
 


You forget that people have been indoctrinated over the past ten years to think that the TSA and the Patriot Act keep us safe. While they may annoy people it won't take much more than pointing out there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 to convince people that they are necessary safety measures.

As for the governmental agencies, the one that sticks out in my mind as one he wants to dissolve is the Department of Education. If Paul went onto national television and the told the people of America that he wanted to get rid of the Department of Education most would think he hates children. It doesn't matter how much money it would save them because most would see that as an attack on their children.


Keeps us safe? You really think people are that stupid? They haven't caught one single terrorist, although there sure are a lot of pi$$ed off grandmothers out there who've been groped by thugs. People are tired of it and actually I don't think people were EVER that indoctrinated, they are just TOLD over and over by MSM that we should be very very frightened. Most people I know are more frightened by airport security than they are about some guy in a turban.

As for the DOE, or any of the other departments, I suppose it will all depend on how many of his nominees he can get approved and I'm sure he already has a short list in his head of who would be best to clean house in each one of those positions. But most parents would like to see more local control over their schools and less federal tinkering around with their children's education, anyway, so I think if he has a good plan he'd have no trouble at all selling it to the people. So far they seem to like his plans. A lot.

But it was a good question you asked here and it has made me think a little more about how things might work and how they might not. What we do know for sure is that Dr. Paul has had enough exposure to the way things work in DC and he knows most of the people he'll be working with so he probably a good grasp on just how much he can MAYBE get done, at least better than any of us could have.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Bullet point, no nonsense

1. Ron Paul never claimed to save the world, nor has any f his supporters claimed as much, his goal is to save america.

2. Ron Paul accomplished many things during his 12 terms of congress, one being a partial audit of the federal reserve. Every time rn paul votes NAY he serves the will of the people.

3. Ron Paul has educated more people than most presidents combined.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Except the main cost in having troops abroad is maintaining the bases.


Have you ever been to Iraq? They are some of the nicest people ever...Soft spoken but down to earth, and we are there..Ohh, because Bush said there was WMD's there... BS!!...We need to bring all our troops back and stop occupying other countries, unless you would like another countries occupying us?!...Didn't think so...
edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Except the main cost in having troops abroad is maintaining the bases. He does not have the authority to close them. So even if he orders all the troops home we're still paying their salaries and the cost to maintain foreign bases. So while it does serve to get the troops home it does not achieve his goal of saving money.


If there is no one at the base, there is nothing to maintain.

And what makes you think this is any type of valid argument at all? The problem is that we have bases in other people's lands. We don't belong there, period. This is not rocket science.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


What does this have to do with what I said? The primary economic cost in having troops overseas is in the maintenance of bases. Only Congress has the ability to close down bases So he could bring the troops home but it won't doing anything to fix the economy like he claims it will.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join