What would a Ron Paul Presidency Look Like?

[TomCollins]

Clearly everyone would be out of Iraq pretty fast, since the Commander in Chief could do this. But then he will need to rely on Congress to pass bills. If Paul is anything like how he is in the House, anything that has any unconstitutional part will be vetoed by Dr. No. This means anything short of a minimalist government will be shot down.

Congress will have to override his veto to pass any legislation. It would be likely that Congress would have to come to some sort of agreement to get the overriding veto, since its unlikely they would dismantle the government as much as Paul would want. Expect a few government shutdowns and major fights, especially since Dr. No doesn't like to compromise. This will piss off a lot of people and generally be seen as a crisis. It wouldn't surprise me if a large group tried to get him impeached as well. In any case, after 4 years, everyone will be so scared of these small government extremists, a large scale socalist will likely win the next election, promising to make the government fix all these problems.

I'm all for supporting Ron Paul and would personally love if he were in charge of things, but I'm afraid that it might just make things worse in the long run. The best reason to support Ron Paul is not to get him elected, but to get his ideas out there and hope more mainstream candidates will implement them and slowly move things toward his vision.

Any other predictions?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"In any case, after 4 years, everyone will be so scared of these small government extremists, a large scale socalist will likely win the next election, promising to make the government fix all these problems."

LOL?

Anyway, Ron Paul's Presidency would likely be entirely about foreign policy, with some moderate efforts to curb the size of the welfare state and a hardline approach to crushing any new efforts to regulate, subsidise or otherwise play with the economy. Some of the worst laws would get repealed and some of the least effective programs would be slashed. The 500 billion saved from ending this crazy foreign policy would mean huge tax breaks for all.

[kyleb]

I'm with GCYW, Ron Paul would focus almost primarily on ending interventionist foreign policy in his first term.

[zasterguava]

How long for him to legalize ALL drugs?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"How long for him to legalize ALL drugs? "

There's no chance he'd do that... what he will do is stop the federal war on drugs (for example DEA agents are raiding legal medical marijuana facilities in California right now, he would put a stop to that).

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
"How long for him to legalize ALL drugs? "

There's no chance he'd do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sucks!

[W brad]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the hazards of a Paul presidency?

Dodging all those flying pigs aint going to be easy.

[GoodCallYouWin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"How long for him to legalize ALL drugs? "

There's no chance he'd do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sucks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, because I agree with your stance and Dr. Paul's stance that all drugs should be legalized. On the other hand, he will do more towards legalizing all drugs (by stopping the federal war on drugs) than anyone else aside from Kucinich or Gravel. The reason Paul wouldn't fully legalize is because he doesn't think the federal government should tell states what to do, so if a state wants to keep it illegal, he is powerless to prevent that (in his view of the constitution).

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Why hasn't anyone mentioned the hazards of a Paul presidency?"

Because they're not really note worthy compared with the hazards of maintaing the status quo.

[zasterguava]

Being from UK I'm not completely informed on the candidates. Do you know what John Edwards stance is on the legalisation of drugs?