Thread: I wonder, if Paul were to get elected as POTUS

why is this thread so wide-?

Ron Paul has supporters from BOTH party's,the Independents and has inspired people who have never voted before in their lives to finally become a registered voter.

I am trying not to knock Mitt but I guess I could say to the Mitt fans.If you would just vote for RON PAUL instead of Mitt we might have a chance but I know that is not fair to say so leave RP fans alone because in our hearts we know who the true Patriot Candidate is , RON PAUL !

Amen

I laugh to myself when I hear or read that Ron Paul is not electable


The Epic of "The Unelectable" : Ron Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbb6RgSvKDc



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50038

What Part of Ron Paul's Platform Is Crazy?
Greg Albert


-Armed Forces Veteran
-Veterans' Advocacy
-B.A., Philosophy
-Juris Doctor Candidate

"Greg Albert is one of the finest Ron Paul apologists in the press" -Greg Albert



By Greg Albert
January 24, 2008
I seriously want to know which of Ron Paul´s ideas are crazy. I read a lot of empty assertions in the media that Ron Paul´s ideas are fringe, nutty, or kooky. I couldn´t disagree more, but it´s hard to say because those terms don't really mean anything and the press ain´t exactly full of rhetorical geniuses.

To me, it seems that Paul´s platform is the genuine position of anyone who subscribes to an individualist ethos. Sure, plenty of politicians claim to believe in individualism, but they jump into a collectivist perspective as soon as they get a question from the media. In contrast, Paul´s positions strike me as the natural consequence of anyone who believes in the Lockean theory of self-governance upon which our Constitution was more-or-less predicated. From that theory, almost directly, issues libertarianism/conservatism

So here is my simplified breakdown: Individuals have a right to do anything they want so long as they don´t infringe on the rights of others and they keep their agreements (contracts). Through those agreements, they can abrogate their rights to other people and they can create entities like states or corporations. They agree to charters to create states that will abrogate some of their rights for the purpose of protecting civil rights through their legislative and executive functions and enforcing contracts through their judiciary functions. In turn, those states contract to create a Constitution to bind them all.

The problem is that the Federal Government is far removed from the self-governing individual. Worse, democratic decisions by the federal government yield larger groups of disenfranchised minorities (in the numerical sense) than do the states or local governments. This is already abhorrent to the individualist who would prefer the consensual (albeit, impossible) government to the democratic model. So in enforcing the Constitution, the libertarian believes the best way to protect the minority is to limit what the majority can do. Thus, the conservative is born.

The conservative believes in a devolutionary federal system because that submits decisions to abrogate rights back to the states where individuals get more purchase. "Sure" the Conservative says, "the Federal Government can use its power to do good, but the process of removing the power from the states breeds corruption". And he is right. The same type of Constitutional circumvention that gave us the New Deal, now gives us the Iraq War, surreptitious entry into your private business, and commits Americans to years of overwhelming debt. You see, you can give the government power, but you cannot always control who will harness the power. And when the wrong President gets in charge…or a Congress that is spineless in his/her presence, you get a certain kind of runaway government that the people who ratified the Constitution, and thereby created that government, are helpless to control. It's all well-and-good when the left uses it to grant social programs, but now the right has abandoned conservatism in order to harness that power too. Paul´s position, the real conservative position, is that strict adherence to the Constitution, the very contract that creates the government, is the best measure for the government to protect the citizens from itself.

What´s that you say? The Federal Government needs to perform some functions that are not enumerated in the Constitution? The conservative will tell you that you should amend it. "That´s too hard", some say, "we need a supermajority". No, they're being lazy or misdirected. First, the supermajority is required because if you´re going to add to the powers of the Constitution and thereby stymie rights, you had better come correct and get more than a measly fifty percent of the population to agree. Second, that impression doesn´t explain the 18th and 21st Amendments, which were ratified to prohibit alcohol, and then to repeal the prohibition, respectively. Sorry folks, but if the Constitution was that hard to amend, we wouldn´t have amended it to prohibit liquor, of all things.



Most important, it seems that our hesitance about the Constitutional Amendment process stems from conditioning. Senators and Congressmen have no interest in amending the Constitution because Amendments tend to settle disputes, put the people in power, and tell the government what to do. The Congress would prefer that we donate to congressional campaigns and it promises to fight our fights in Washington D.C. But few congressman have any incentive to win! Once they do, the money disappears and they lose a core cause. They´re better off winning battles and losing wars, even if we´re better off winning both.

Among other reasons, that is why Congress refuses to direct citizens toward the Constitutional Amendment process. The founders anticipated this and therefore gave states the right to amend the Constitution by themselves. This is obviously a better system. By disaggregating power away from Washington D.C., special interests can´t get a strong foothold in enough states. Even better, state representatives tend to have term limits and tend to live in close proximity of the citizens that they might enrage with bad or corrupt decisions. In contrast, when we centralize power on Capitol Hill we put all the influence in a nice little box for such organizations as the Military Industrial Complex to unwrap. And that´s where we are today.

Now, Paul´s positions issue directly from the Constitution. He opposes the Federal Reserve because it is secret and unapproachable. Who can blame him? When did we allow our states to allow our government to allow an independent organization to run our economy? And why can´t we audit it? Isn´t that a little too removed from the control of the people? Why do we commit Americans to war without bothering to declare one? Why do we allow Congress to give away $30,000 medals to dead people, purchased with our tax money? Why do we allow the government to sell our Social Security to China or to spy in our computers without warrant? We almost impeached Nixon for less, but now we stand by as the very entity we created runs rough-shot over the orders we gave it. We don´t let corporations operate so far outside of their bylaws or articles of incorporation. We don´t interpret contracts among individuals as 'living documents'. Yet we´ve allow the government to turn the Social Security Trust into the bureaucratic version of the Enron Corporation and interpret its very license to exist however it deems important.

Someone, please write to me and tell me how I am wrong. I will not post your name unless you tell me to. Tell me how Paul is wrong. Of course, I don't expect you to back up such exaggerated terms as 'kooky'. I just need to hear a single coherent rebuttal or explanation. Please ensure you understand Paul´s positions. For example, I don´t want to hear about how Paul wants to return to the gold standard because he doesn´t. Here is the Wikipedia entry for Paul´s platform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul

Finally, in response to a previous readers´ question about why I don´t support Rudolph Giuliani: I don´t support Giuliani because (a) I don´t vote for neo-conservatives who seem more dangerous than Democrats (I´d rather go broke with sweet social programs than go broke with a foreign war) and (b) I am a man, as opposed to a frightened child who needs protection from spooky terrorists.

I understand how you feel USPatriot. Downright frustrated and scared to death as well.

I think many people feel that there might not be enough people to get Ron Paul elected. I think that's the worry most people have.

I think they believe that the McCain, Huckster and their people would rally behind Romney if he is the candidate more than they might rally behind Ron Paul. (Whether this is true...I don't know. We should try to figure this out.....IF POSSIBLE)

I don't know the answer, but I do know if we continue going along acting as if we can be split and going in different directions and have ANY possibility of having a president who will be strong on illegal immigration,
I think we're being very naive and that we're making a dreadful mistake.

I believe that everyone knows that. But still we continue along paving the way for Barack Obama to become the next president.

Please kiss ALL HOPE for dealing with illegal immigration goodbye if that happens. Prepare for amnesty and the next group of invaders. Even with the fence, they'll just fly in and overstay their visas.

The fence is only a PART of the equation necessary to deal with this problem. To Barack Obama....illegal immigration isn't even a problem.

Ergh. I hate it when the thread gets so wide it won't fit on the screen.

Anyone know how to "fix it"?

Anyway, I was going to ask if we have a "list" of Ron Paul endorsers.
I'm just curious who they are and if we might know some of them.

I think it makes people nervous to vote for people who are endorsed by people they don't know. They like to at least know the majority of the people endorsing a candidate......even though I don't think it really plays too much of a role in people making their decision as to who they will vote for.

But in a Ron Paul case, where many people simply do not feel familiar with him...(to many people it feels like he just popped out of the woodwork very recently)
seeing a list of who is endorsing him might have some relevance in this case.

Do we have a list?

Seeing a list of who is endorsing him means very little.

It is like getting an endorsement from the Major News Media and you know who is behind most of them.

It would probably be the same with the Talking Heads.

Any name that you would recognize would be the insiders anyway.

I think the only endorsement he needs are the majority of the people who think he is our only hope for the future.

I personally think endorsements are meaningless. IMHO

If we can move on to the next page and away from this - wide - thread I'll post some endorsements.

Ron has many endorsements, here are some elected officials

Elected Officials

Dieter W. Bayer, Former State Representative, Idaho

Dennis R. Brown, City Council of Olney, TX

David L. Buhlman, P.E., Former 2-Term NH State Representative, District
27 (R)

Doug Burlison, City Councilman, General Seat C, Springfield, Missouri

Dr. Cale Case, State Senator, Wyoming

Bob Davies, Representative Montana House of Representatives (1999-2001); U.S. Marine Corps Veteran

Porter Davis, Former State Representative, Oklahoma

Michael J. Doherty, State Assemblyman, New Jersey
Jack Emkes, City Councilperson, City of Dike, Iowa

Mike Folmer, State Senator, Pennsylvania General Assembly

Barry Goldwater, Jr., Republican Congressman, California

Jim Guest, State Representative, Missouri

Barbara Hagan, Former State Representative, New Hampshire; Former
Chair, New Hampshire Right to Life Committee

George F. Harrs, Former City Commissioner and Vice-Mayor, Lake Worth,
Florida

Gary Hayes, Former Mayor of Middleburgh, NY

Karen S. Johnson, State Senator, Arizona

Rick Jore, State Representative, Montana

Charles Key, State Representative, Oklahoma

Roger Koopman, State Representative, Montana

Thomas Langlais, Former State Representative, New Hampshire

R. Kenneth Lindell, Former State Representative, Maine

John McAlister, Councilman, Gahanna, Ohio

Tom McGillvray, State Representative, Montana

Allan Mansoor, Mayor, Costa Mesa, CA

Jason W. Murphey, State Representative, House District 31, Oklahoma

Jerry O'Neil, State Senator, Montana

Mark Owen, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Owosso, MI

John G. “Gregâ€

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

.

Do we have a list?

I've been a fan of Ron Paul for 20 years. There's a list of endorsements on his web page, of all the unlikely places.

Personally I think the fact he is able to raise 6 million in one day and continues to raise,not only money for his campaign,but money for a Blimp, is the best endorsement.

Also Check www.whitehouseforsale.org to see where campaign money is coming from and you will see ALL the other top contenders are accepting Lobbyist money EXCEPT Dr.Paul.

His money comes strictly from individual contributors.

What better endorsement is there to show the American people who is going to be looking out for their best interest instead of lobbyist.