Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by Regret$

Congress cannot hide from the bully pulpit. It's funny you guys talk about balance of the 3 branches but don't really believe in it based on this statement!

Impeachment is exactly part of the balance of the 3 branches. The executive cannot break the law and there is a good chance a lot of what he talks about doing could be considered grounds for impeachment.

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by NameOnTheCake

i guess my mind was just blown by the fact that you said four years of "libertarian" rule would somehow validate the war on drugs

That isnt what i said at all.

[Case Closed]

Originally Posted by Regret$

Congress cannot hide from the bully pulpit. It's funny you guys talk about balance of the 3 branches but don't really believe in it based on this statement!

Which part? I think there is a big difference between what I want to happen in any given scenario and what I think will happen. I don't think congress is going to put through a budget of a couple billion dollars or whatever really small figure RP wants. I think it is far more likely that congress will use all of their powers to try and get RP to bend to their will.

Throwing RP in as president makes it really hard to imagine a scenario where there is not a very bitter very nasty political struggle. A struggle I don't think RP is capable of handling. The victims in this struggle, ultimately, would be the US citizens imo.

[SL__72]

Originally Posted by Case Closed

This falls under the unpredictable elements of a RP presidency imo. You would have a complete radical at the top of a huge pyramid. He certainly has the power to effect change, but how are local operations that are beholden to multiple power structures going to react? State officials still have to be elected by their local governments, so that means they can't just adopt RP line automatically.

I never even implied that they might. My only point was that approx 1/3 of the total drug war budget was under the direct authority of the president.

The bigger point is that this is a classic political argument technique. "Sure he has some good positions, but he can't do anything about those things. And on all these things I don't like he has 100% control."

When in reality its probably like 10% or 33% or something across the board. I don't mean that it is uniform, just that opponents are going to underestimate the ability to do "good" and overestimate the ability to do "bad."

[MissileDog]

If anyone is curious what an obstructionist president who vetoed every budget until he was overridden would look like... California says hai! We have shutdowns every budget cycle like clockwork. The main reason politics is so dysfunctional is that the state budget requires a super-majority to being with, more than half the budget is mandated, and the Governor still has the veto. Gridlock is guaranteed.

And to be fair, I don't imagine Dr.Paul acting that way hypothetically, not in the least. Dr.Paul has always been a legalizator, and an executive position is apples and oranges different. He surely understands that. I imagine he hypothetically would be more reasonable and be more willing to compromise on more areas of the budget than your typical R or D, as a trade-off for his decidedly narrow areas of interest.

Originally Posted by SL__72

...The bigger point is that this is a classic political argument technique. "Sure he has some good positions, but he can't do anything about those things. And on all these things I don't like he has 100% control."... opponents are going to underestimate the ability to do "good" and overestimate the ability to do "bad."

I think this is where Dr.Paul's supporters got their world view 100% backwards. It seems that *most* take as a given that he will 100% effective on the only two good things he champions (ending the war on drug users, and ending the real wars). While also claiming he would be 100% ineffective on the seemingly 100s of bad things he champions (see what Dr.Paul's supporters incorrectly call "trolling" above ITT).

[Case Closed]

Originally Posted by SL__72

I never even implied that they might. My only point was that approx 1/3 of the total drug war budget was under the direct authority of the president.

I am just saying that these agencies work in concert with one and another. If one completely bows out then the other will likely fill the void. There is a strong desire to continue the war on drugs amongst the majority of US citizens.

The bigger point is that this is a classic political argument technique. "Sure he has some good positions, but he can't do anything about those things. And on all these things I don't like he has 100% control."

When in reality its probably like 10% or 33% or something across the board.

I was just answering TomCollin's questions. I have no friggen' clue what RP could or could not do. Like, I honesty think a military coup would not be out of the question if RP becomes president. Highly unlikely, but not out of the question. That's just one of many potentially ugly scenarios that I worry about far more than just what policies might RP enact.

There is a lot about RP that does not sit well with me these days. I don't want to come across like I think RP president = military coup. I want to come across as PR president = ?????. Question marks are very very bad imo.

[NameOnTheCake]

That isnt what i said at all.

you're right, rereading you make two assertions. First, that after four years of a libertarian president that the public would realize that libertarianism "isnt all its cracked up to be". Then you say that whoever takes over after the people boot RP would restart the drug war on the federal level. I just wonder what you're basing either of those on, if anything

[Max Raker]

Originally Posted by NameOnTheCake

you're right, rereading you make two assertions. First, that after four years of a libertarian president that the public would realize that libertarianism "isnt all its cracked up to be". Then you say that whoever takes over after the people boot RP would restart the drug war on the federal level. I just wonder what you're basing either of those on, if anything

He was talking about a world where RP is elected president of the United States. It's hard to base that discussion on anything other than pure conjecture and speculation.

[Regret$]

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Impeachment is exactly part of the balance of the 3 branches. The executive cannot break the law and there is a good chance a lot of what he talks about doing could be considered grounds for impeachment.

How in God's name is not signing a crappy budget when not signing was exactly what you were elected for grounds for impeachment?

Originally Posted by Case Closed

Throwing RP in as president makes it really hard to imagine a scenario where there is not a very bitter very nasty political struggle. A struggle I don't think RP is capable of handling. The victims in this struggle, ultimately, would be the US citizens imo.

Originally Posted by MissileDog

If anyone is curious what an obstructionist president who vetoed every budget until he was overridden would look like... California says hai! We have shutdowns every budget cycle like clockwork. The main reason politics is so dysfunctional is that the state budget requires a super-majority to being with, more than half the budget is mandated, and the Governor still has the veto. Gridlock is guaranteed.

Why is this a bad thing? How high does the rake need to before you guys will stop playing the game?????

You understand what happens here right? The guys with the best rakeback deal are the only ones who can beat the game. The same guys who lobbied for all of the crap to begin with.

BP and Exxon thank you for your donations to their foreign policy.

Blue cross thanks your for your donations to their business model.

Budweiser thanks you for your donations to their business model.

WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH????

[Regret$]

[MissileDog]

Originally Posted by Regret$

...Why is this a bad thing? How high does the rake need to before you guys will stop playing the game?????...

Dude, the more gridlock, the more power the owners of BP, Exxon, et al have. And the less we have. It's the mega rich that maneuver to cause the gridlock, and the mega rich that profit from the gridlock. They like things just the way they are, TYVM.

You have things 100% backwards.

And remember, I don't play the game. I la lucha against the game in the streets, where it matters. If you believe nobody should be able to run your life... vote for nobody. Don't vote, it only encourages them.

[Regret$]

Originally Posted by MissileDog

Dude, the more gridlock, the more power the owners of BP, Exxon, et al have. And the less we have. It's the mega rich that maneuver to cause the gridlock, and the mega rich that profit from the gridlock. They like things just the way they are, TYVM.

How on earth can have more power if they are not spending 15% of the GDP of this country?

[SL__72]

Originally Posted by Case Closed

I want to come across as PR president = ?????. Question marks are very very bad imo.

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Replace anything in the bottom half of the paragraph with "unknowns" and sign and you've graduated from ever having to post in this thread again.

[SL__72]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

SL- That's not really the same context for "privacy", now, is it? For example, seems like if I have a warrant I can go into your house to make sure you aren't having sex in a way that offends Biblical principles.

The idea that Ron Paul doesn't support the things he explicitly and repeatedly says he does is amazing.

If you're going to make the case that gay people should fear RP, that he said sodomy laws are ridiculous and favors a strong interpretation of the 4th amendment are both relevant points.

Originally Posted by MissileDog

I think this is where Dr.Paul's supporters got their world view 100% backwards. It seems that *most* take as a given that he will 100% effective on the only two good things he champions (ending the war on drug users, and ending the real wars). While also claiming he would be 100% ineffective on the seemingly 100s of bad things he champions (see what Dr.Paul's supporters incorrectly call "trolling" above ITT).

1. His supporters of course like a lot more than 2 of his policies, monetary reform maybe even being the biggest. Those are just talked about the most (especially here) because they are the two huge issues where he sides with liberals.
2. My point was that everyone does that, not everyone but RP supporters. If you think they are unique in that sense, though, you probably live under a rock (or, more likely, in the libertarian dominated 2+2 politics forum).

[MissileDog]

Originally Posted by Regret$

How on earth can have more power if they are not spending 15% of the GDP of this country?

They spend that money to cause the gridlock, what do you think it goes towards? Gridlock isn't free... it takes millions and millions of $$$ to generate and maintain.

Basically the richest people win these elections over 90% of the time. And those are simple majority rules elections. When it takes a super-majority, that richest peoples winning percentage goes up directly, as the percentage of the voters they need to propagandize goes down directly.

Like I've said, we've been seeing this effect in California for about 20 years now. This same effect has been demonstrated empirically.