Ron Paul what if’s….
Drowned Out
Posts: 6,056
Let’s pretend the good folks at Diebold allow Ron Paul to become the next president 
…. After taking office:
- He begins his social reforms – eliminating programs
- He brings all the troops home immediately
- He begins economic reforms – you’ve gotta think this would cause a few years of instability
- Withdraws from the UN
Etc etc….basically begins following through on all of the changes he is campaigning on…
I worry what would happen if the ‘old guard’ was given an opportunity to attack Dr.Paul and his policies as “soft on terror”…any kind of attack would be pounced upon immediately by the hawks that would be looking for a way to get “their” country back.
Would the American psyche have changed enough to not be influenced into another violent knee jerk reaction?
I don’t worry about Ron Paul’s policies on these issues…But I do worry what the administrations following RP would do with an America in transition. Some of Dr.Pauls policies mesh quite well with the long term neo-con agenda. (cut social spending, less cooperation with UN and NATO, the assertion of military might that is not prudent today without regrouping the forces).
Conspiracy theorist backlash against Ron Paul? Say it ain’t so My inner socialist must be fighting back 
I think the prospect of the needed reforms in the US leading the country further to the right worries me a bit.
I’m sure this discussion could bring snide remarks from all sides…but if he does end up with a shot at president (I think he has one already), there will be a LOT of what if’s….
…. After taking office:- He begins his social reforms – eliminating programs
- He brings all the troops home immediately
- He begins economic reforms – you’ve gotta think this would cause a few years of instability
- Withdraws from the UN
Etc etc….basically begins following through on all of the changes he is campaigning on…
I worry what would happen if the ‘old guard’ was given an opportunity to attack Dr.Paul and his policies as “soft on terror”…any kind of attack would be pounced upon immediately by the hawks that would be looking for a way to get “their” country back.
Would the American psyche have changed enough to not be influenced into another violent knee jerk reaction?
I don’t worry about Ron Paul’s policies on these issues…But I do worry what the administrations following RP would do with an America in transition. Some of Dr.Pauls policies mesh quite well with the long term neo-con agenda. (cut social spending, less cooperation with UN and NATO, the assertion of military might that is not prudent today without regrouping the forces).
Conspiracy theorist backlash against Ron Paul? Say it ain’t so
My inner socialist must be fighting back I think the prospect of the needed reforms in the US leading the country further to the right worries me a bit.I’m sure this discussion could bring snide remarks from all sides…but if he does end up with a shot at president (I think he has one already), there will be a LOT of what if’s….
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
at which point congress reminds him about the role of the executive branch and, having been completely smacked down, Ron Paul becomes the least effective president since Bush II.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
None of these plans are instant. The system is completely fucked at the moment for those who haven't noticed. Murder has become policy to stay afloat...kind of a big warning sign don't you think?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
besides nobody is going to do the defense of the country right - if he's in, then we get attacked - "we should have never brought them home"
but if he does bring them home and we get attacked - he had better use overwhelming force nad end it quick...would score a lot of points...umm, except from the libs
Even if Ron Paul is as trustworthy as he appears…the entrenchment of PNAC/Bilderberg/CFR associations and ideology in Washington runs deep enough that I have concerns with what would happen if RP was only able to implement some of those plans during his term, and the public didn’t get immediate results….most of these things would be difficult to implement without a fairly radical shift in philosophy in the US. Possibly something the neo-cons couldn’t get done on there own – some of his policies play right into their hands.
If RP can convince the people (and the people convince congress) that it’s in their best interest to drastically slash social spending, and he only gets one term before something DOES go to shit….and the establishment is able to blame him for it…does the possibility not exist that the US is back to where it is today, minus medicare, prescription assistance, education funding, etc…? As horribly managed as these programs are, would the US be better off without them if military spending was ramped up again by the following admin?
he has said he will bring home every troop in the middle east?
You raise a lot of good points, and it is frustrating to look at it from an early perspective. I don't envy the next president one bit (whomever it is) as things are so messed up, it's going to take a miracle to make it look like he/she is doing anything right for a long time. Even then all it takes is another 9/11 incident to get everyone back on the war train again, and then I'm off to find my deserted island in the carribean, and wait out the shit storm. Hopefully upwind from the nuclear fallout.
It's becoming a bit of a miserable outlook, and there's a phenomenal amount of hope involved to hold it together. All I know is you have to aim for the best intentions, and place a huge amount of trust in them as well. Reality falls somewhere in the middle (hopefully).... there's that word again.
I'm hoping (there it is again) some kind of international awareness takes place over the next year with RP's message, and the entire situation turns around. The alternative is not so nice to think about. Less and less rights....more and more terrorism and war...blech...garbage.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
I just don't understand this logic.
If men like JFK can, through the executive, lead the country TOWARDS social programs like education and retirement security ... not by abuse of their command, but by LEADING the country and proposing legislation for congress, why can Ron Paul not be assumed to do the same?
Kennedy went through hell and highwater to get those programs on the books, but he was a strong leader and had the support of the PEOPLE.
We can only assume that Ron Pauls plight would be the same.
To reverse the countries tack, he would have to exhibit strong leadership skills, rally the public sentiment, and lead a charge through proposed legislation.
If more than half the country votes for the man, you have to assume that sentiment HAS shifted.
I've said it before and i'll say it again,
if your only argument is that congress is not going to work with him, you need to step back and ask yourself this:
If the MAJORITY of America stands up in revolt to elect Ron Paul, must you not assume that they will also stand up to revolt against congress, should they not be willing to work with him?
Step 1: The MAJORITY elect Ron Paul.
Step 2: The MAJORITY elect a legislature that is "on the level" and willing to work on said reforms.
Is it a lot of work?
Hell yes.
Is it out of the realm of possibility?
Fuck no.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Drowned Out, i hear you.
I can only say this.
A majority vote to elect Ron Paul would be SUCH A RADICAL SHIFT in the political landscape of America, that one has to make a few assumptions.
1. The people are so sick of the status quo of politics that they are willing to accept short term negative economic outlooks to garner longterm stability.
2. The people have "woken up" and are no longer willing to be lied to en masse.
I think what you are getting at speaks more to point 2 than point 1, and it IS a valid concern.
However, again, if the majority of the country is willing to elect someone as "radical" as Ron Paul, one has to assume that the resolve is pretty high, and that media lies are not going to easily reverse that commitment.
Also, lets not forget,
while the media may rule supreme in general,
you ARE talking about the PRESIDENT.
You get press on what you say, regardless of whom is running the media at that juncture. The point being, the media can slander and try to sway opinion on the man all they want. If he is president, he gets the penultimate platform for pushing his side of the issues. He says something, it goes in print. As long as the majority of americans were to continue vesting their faith in him as honest and in the right with their interests at heart, his reassurance from the podium should be enough to keep their support.
In otherwords, all the evening news slandering wont do any good, if Ron Paul or his Press Secretary can just get up to the podium every morning and speak directly to the people via C-Span.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The hope is definitely that the public will be awakened by his message enough that they would not fall into old habits if something went wrong. I’m not sure I’m willing to give the public that much credit at this point….but, without hope, ya ain’t got much of anything (you make a good point that his message would be unavoidable if he was elected) And at the very least, Ron Paul seems to be all about hope. My fear remains that he could be used as a neo-con scapegoat/facilitator/martyr….choosing between a risk of being worse off, and maintaining the status quo, I'd rather be a gamblin man. Wish I got to vote
http://www.ronpaulstamp.com/
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If the money is counterfeit,
is it really vandalism?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Then IF his bills do somehow get by Congress and everything is cut, chaos ensues. Unemployment goes up, homelessness goes up, crime goes out, and gangs and militias began to gain size and power as people need to somewhere to turn to.
A bit of a doomsday scenario I know, but I suppose it's not totally out of the realm of possibility.
KUCINICH 08 Radical change but with help from the government, not neglect.
Just remember,
everything works yin and yang.
As "homelessness" goes up (i assume you mean foreclosures do to layoffs?), housing prices fall dramaticaly.
We are seeing this now the subprime\SIV\rate-freeze\bail-out\government-intervention problem.
The people who lose their homes become renters.
The people who didn't suffer such fates, and who were renting, now have the perfect opportunity to buy!
I'm not sure what you derive your "unemployement" assesment from, but the only thing that i can come to think of is his plan to abolish the Fed.
All i can say to that, if debt-based currency was replaced with commodity-based currency (gold backed), real wealth in the nation should, theoreticaly INCREASE.
Less money is needed from the people, since the government is not obligated to pay anyone back anything.
This is a huge theoretical discussion on what money "is", and i won't do that here.
However,
people like to work, and they will seek new jobs, or CREATE them.
If they aren't paying income tax, the real wealth in their pocket has increased dramaticaly.
If they can't find huge corporate jobs because those are failing due to the reversal of decades of fiat fiscal policy, it simply means that wealth flows back to local companies, and new regional upstarts.
People don't just universaly give up and sit on their asses all day.
Just because the wealthiest of the wealthy will lose big when their fake money goes away, and the market is no longer as liquid (read: crooked. wealth increased at the top, by removing dollar value at the bottom - your dollar got weaker, and some banker got twice as rich) as it once was, doesn't make for unending doom and gloom.
Sure, things would be rough in the short term -- a year or two -- but it is nothing more than a restructuring of the capital flow in the country.
And at the end of the day that flow is infinitely more predictable, and STABLE!
No bubbles, no busts.
Your dollar is worth what it is worth.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This is the alternative that would be tearin me up if I were American. Right now I dont' see Kucinich as having as much of a shot as Paul tho.
Even with their opposing ideologies, I think if RP won the GOP nod, DK crossing over to run with him (as was mentioned here before) would be ideal. So they would butt heads....I would hope they are both reasonable enough to find compromises that would be the best of both worlds.
I don't know about your suggestions re crime, etc. tho...but I do worry that there would be a 'down' time as Paul forced the US into recovery mode....That's what the point of this thread was...if something goes wrong during that time, it would probably be easy to convince the people that it was because of his policies, and that he is breaking the country (instead of fixing one that's already broken).
The other point i see lying in here regarding "broke" and "fixing" it is this:
In case you are not paying attention, job growth is way down, inflation is way up, real wealth of the average american is WAY down, crime is doing just fine, and HOMELESSNESS IS ABOUT TO SOAR.
POINT: IT IS ALREADY BROKE, AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING!
Bad fiscal policy is taking its toll, as the dollar loses faith around the world, Americans will pay in REAL losses.
The Fed is probably going to have its arm twisted in to a .25 or .5 point rate cut next week. EVERYONE on CNBC who seems to have a clue realizes that this is
a. what the market wants
b. what the market will get
c. NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM
As one of them said,
"If the problem is over supply of money, and easy credit, YOU DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH MORE MONEY AND EASIER CREDIT!"
The Fed is about to fuck america in the ass, mouth, ear, nose, and naval!
So what do you want?
A consolidated peroid of "trend reversal" where Ron Paul leads us away from wanton fiscal disaster and towards sound, and honest money?
Or do you want a protracted (unending!) and deepening recession and decline of dollar value that ultimately ends in TOTAL collapse of the economic system with EVERYONE losing their shirt?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You got to spend it all