Will Ron Paul be allowed to make a difference if elected?

I have a very sketchy knowledge of the US political system, so forgive the naive question...

Lots of people seem to be rallying behind Ron Paul, and i can see whay on many topics. Yet will it really matter should he ever be elected?

I remember a post once showing a picture of Obama before on the day of his win, then one of him the day after and he looked like he'd seen a ghost. Someone said, "He's probably just been told to forget everything because THIS is how it's going to go!".

Ok that was just a tounge in cheek remark, but how much power does the POTUS actually have?

Ron Paul may have some great ideas, but would they be allowed to become a reality? Anything he proposes still has to get through congress doesn't it?

CX.

IF he gets elected he won't accomplish anything. I have yet to hear how he plans to get congress to approve his legislation.

It really doesn't matter because we all know that he is not going to be elected but I'll still play. IF he were to get the job nothing would be achieved because the president is only the poster boy...

If he won and attempted to implement even half of what he's been talking about,
he'd be Breitbarted within a month.

Or maybe he'd join JFK Jr. off the coast of Martha's Vineyard.

I was never a fan of Obama. It's odd you mention that "look" he had before/after election. I remember thinking how creepy it was.

In any case, one man is never going to change anything. We should all stop waiting because it will never happen. WE have to facilitate that change.

Yes, he would be able to talk to the people about the issues around the world. Start educating them the right way. People just need to know a lot of things are bull # and aren't meant for us (like war.) This is ONLY if he gets elected but it's kind of hard with how many corrupted people there are and how far they would to stop him from achieving presidency.

There is still a slight chance he his corrupted as well. Meant to be our light in the dark, for us to follow but to our deaths not liberation. Every generation thus far has failed to rid the world of evil so it's obviously up to us to stand in its way before it tries to kill and takeover the planet, it's just much harder to see who acting and who is not. I think it's best for all of us to ignore politics, governments, etc and join together as people. Stop with this mad idea of always needing someone to lead us or control certain things then maybe we can unravel the lies for true progression.

It doesn't matter who is elected president, there are people behind a shroud of secrecy pooling the strings and making the decisions as to who get to walk and who gets to ride first class... The whole idea that votes, opinion polls or The Constitution has any value other than to confuse the masses is just distractions and tools used to divide us into 2 opposing groups with slightly over 50% feeling like what they want is going to get done. If not they blame members of congress voted into office by the opposing party for queering their deal.... It would take a majority vote much larger than we usually see and be manipulated during the count for any real changes to take place...

He certainly wouldn't let controversial portions of bills like the NDAA, get through. He wouldnt have assassination lists, he wouldn't sign legislation like SOPA.

Is say so.

He has made a difference...He has allowed people to look outside of the box...The MSM won't say otherwise, but regardless if he wins or loses he will make a difference and that is all that matters...Hopefully he can pave the way for future politicians... I am hoping Marco Rubio is one of them...

Originally posted by CX
I have a very sketchy knowledge of the US political system, so forgive the naive question...

You come honestly and with a disclaimer that your knowledge of the US political system isn't strong. Of course, what I am about to write is how it is supposed to be; but with all things politics, many paths lead to the same slaughterhouse so to speak.

Since our (the United States) Federal Government is only one component of the overall Union, the Executive Branch (where the presidency resides) is but one of three coequal branches; with the Judiciary and the Legislative being the other two branches. There is also the notion that the United States is a Republic based on Federalism--where States within the Union are to retain sovereignty to a certain point.

When the Constitution was being pitched to the States, there were generally two groups: The Federalist (who proposed a strong central government but states would also play a large role in the governance (via the Senate) in Federal matters. Then there were the Anti-Federalist who proposed a lesser central government and strong States.

In the end, compromises were made (such as adding a Bill of Rights; the 3/5th Compromise [now stricken], etc) and the result was to be a balance between a central government with the ability to conduct and govern the nations most basic needs (national defense, foreign trade, tariffs, etc) and States having the ability to provide a bit more "democracy" at the lower levels.

That of course is the severely abridged version of an overview. When it comes to the Executive, the slow pendulum of power has been swinging steadily in its direction. But even if the pendulum swings completely in the favor of an extremely strong Executive (as I believe it is now and for the past 100 years), the president still must deal with the other two branches; the Legislative (they hold the purse strings, albeit very loosely) and the Judiciary (who have grown to interrupt the Constitution rather than apply it in many cases) to get legislation and actions completed.

Many though could contend that the Executive has been hard at work in creating a Bureaucratic form of quasi-government by empowering the Departments within the Executive (such as Labor, Transportation, etc) and allowing unelected officials to administer government functions without ever touching the Legislative or their consent and advice.

This isn't to say that the Legislative has no teeth or moxy if I may, in reigning in the presidency. Such could be seen in the current fiasco that is American politics; and quite frankly, I have no problem with.

Ok that was just a tounge in cheek remark, but how much power does the POTUS actually have?

Keep that tongue squarely planted in thy cheek! Here is a scenario in which I believe will be the most likely outcome in the elections this year.

President Obama will most likely be reelected, but the American public will swing the House further towards the Republicans and the Senate will eek by with a small majority in Republican favor. If this happens, you will see just how anemic the Executive branch actually is. It is one of the great make ups of our political system.

All in all, the President can have a lot of leeway and power and in an instant can be a lame-duck for 6 years, only making small changes. If the above happens and President Obama gives his ear to former President Bill Clinton, he will move towards the center and push for moderate changes.

Okay, TLDR; but hey, at least you have a brief overview now.

Originally posted by satron
He certainly wouldn't let controversial portions of bills like the NDAA, get through. He wouldnt have assassination lists, he wouldn't sign legislation like SOPA.

Is say so.

Given the numbers, even if he vetoed the bill, it would have passed in Congress. Symbolically it would be great for the People, but ultimately people need to stop focusing so much on the president and start pushing strong, liberty minded candidates at the local, state and congressional levels if they want to see some real change come forward.