What if Ron Paul were the President of the US

[Ethel mermania]

We do not need to know when you touch yourself.

Ok, you're Republican, am I right?

IS there a possibility of having Ron Paul as POTUS? IS this a good thing?

even if he won, congress would hamstring everything he tried to do. Whether a good thing or bad thing i will leave for the masses to decide

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, you're Republican, am I right?

IS there a possibility of having Ron Paul as POTUS? IS this a good thing?

even if he won, congress would hamstring everything he tried to do. Whether a good thing or bad thing i will leave for the masses to decide

See, I ask because a GOP POTUS gives me the hibbie-jibbies. But I'm trying to keep an open mind.

[Butballs]

Rand and Ron paul 2016

[Big Jim P]

We do not need to know when you touch yourself.

Ok, you're Republican, am I right?

IS there a possibility of having Ron Paul as POTUS? IS this a good thing?

No, I am an independent free thinker.

Honestly, I think we will get a right-leaning Republican President, and after 8 years of Obama, yes that is a good thing.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, you're Republican, am I right?

IS there a possibility of having Ron Paul as POTUS? IS this a good thing?

No, I am an independent free thinker.

Honestly, I think we will get a right-leaning Republican President, and after 8 years of Obama, yes that is a good thing.

I think I would prefer a centrist rather than a left or right leaning POTUS. Then again, 8 years of a giant douche and then 8 years of a turd sandwich gives the masses about the same: nothing.

I think that what the US needs is a POTUS that doesn't cater to intra-party politics or cajoling, be him/her Dem or Rep. Chances of that happening? Low, I'm sure.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The nation would be at peace and the world would be safer. The President himself has little legislative power, and Ron Paul is the complete opposite of the average politician - but I feel that he would use the veto on almost every piece of legislation that came to his desk except repeal bills and legislation he sponsored. The GOP would probably support Paul if he were to reach the Presidency.

[Big Jim P]

No, I am an independent free thinker.

Honestly, I think we will get a right-leaning Republican President, and after 8 years of Obama, yes that is a good thing.

I think I would prefer a centrist rather than a left or right leaning POTUS. Then again, 8 years of a giant douche and then 8 years of a turd sandwich gives the masses about the same: nothing.

I think that what the US needs is a POTUS that doesn't cater to intra-party politics or cajoling, be him/her Dem or Rep. Chances of that happening? Low, I'm sure.

What we really need is a third-party libertarian.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think I would prefer a centrist rather than a left or right leaning POTUS. Then again, 8 years of a giant douche and then 8 years of a turd sandwich gives the masses about the same: nothing.

I think that what the US needs is a POTUS that doesn't cater to intra-party politics or cajoling, be him/her Dem or Rep. Chances of that happening? Low, I'm sure.

What we really need is a third-party libertarian.

Yes, you need more options but what are the chances of moving the masses into giving those third and fourth options their vote?

[Big Jim P]

What we really need is a third-party libertarian.

Yes, you need more options but what are the chances of moving the masses into giving those third and fourth options their vote?

About zero. Thinking for oneself takes effort, something most people can't be arsed to expend.

[Murkwood]

The nation would be at peace and the world would be safer. The President himself has little legislative power, and Ron Paul is the complete opposite of the average politician - but I feel that he would use the veto on almost every piece of legislation that came to his desk except repeal bills and legislation he sponsored. The GOP would probably support Paul if he were to reach the Presidency.

The moderates, establishment and NeoCons wouldn't.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Ron Paul for president. Like the idea of freedom and liberty to live in peace.

Lol. You think freedom and liberty mean freedom and liberty. Didn't you get the memo? Freedom means freedom from corporations and discomfort, which means others should be stolen from to protect that freedom. or something

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, you need more options but what are the chances of moving the masses into giving those third and fourth options their vote?

About zero. Thinking for oneself takes effort, something most people can't be arsed to expend.

Then how do they expect to change that which they find to be wrong?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Ron Paul for president. Like the idea of freedom and liberty to live in peace.

Lol. You think freedom and liberty mean freedom and liberty. Didn't you get the memo? Freedom means freedom from corporations and discomfort, which means others should be stolen from to protect that freedom. or something

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

[Its a Texas Thing]

I think I would prefer a centrist rather than a left or right leaning POTUS. Then again, 8 years of a giant douche and then 8 years of a turd sandwich gives the masses about the same: nothing.

I think that what the US needs is a POTUS that doesn't cater to intra-party politics or cajoling, be him/her Dem or Rep. Chances of that happening? Low, I'm sure.

What we really need is a third-party libertarian.

Agreed. Those guys need to have ballot access. Isn't it denied to third parties in a federal law, even?

[Atlanticatia]

Two reasons why Ron Paul is a racist and homophobic:

• He opposes the Civil Rights Act and other civil rights registration. Sorry, but if you're against regulating businesses to prevent discrimination, then you're aiding and abetting institutional racism and discrimination. If you are okay with businesses/people being racist, even if you yourself aren't a racist personally, then you are a racist.
  
• He supports letting states define marriage as between a man and a woman. Sorry, but if you're against allowing people of the same sex to marry each other (and don't uphold equal protection), then you're aiding and abetting homophobia and are against LGBT people. If you are okay with states banning same-sex marriage, even if you yourself aren't against it personally, then you are homophobic.

Therefore, Ron Paul is racist and homophobic, and is okay with upholding (both societal and institutional) discrimination, racism, and homophobia against people of color and LGBT people.

There's no way to give him a pass for being a 'libertarian'. He will always be racist and homophobic until he stops supporting racism and homophobia. Anyone who supports at any extent racism or homophobia in any form is racist and homophobic.

Civil Rights Act of 64- He opposes only one title of the law, and that is on the basis of his views on economics, as he doesn't believe in regulation. By your logic, all free marketers, including non-white free marketers are racist as they don't believe in the state coercing businesses to not discriminate.

Paul has also clarified that the invisible hand of the market will do the job in stopping racism, and that such a title would not only be unenforceable, but unnecessary. He opposes forced segregation, but he opposes forced integration too, as he believes in freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

He thinks marriage is a states issue, so he would be fine with states legalizing gay marriage. If he is homophobic, he would support a national ban on gay marriage.

Pretty much, yes. People who support allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of race are racists.

He'd also be fine with states banning gay marriage, therefore he is against LGBT people because he does not give them equal protection under the law, regardless of where they live. If he is complicit in allowing states to ban gay marriage, when the federal government has the ultimate ability to legalize it in all 50 states, he is against the LGBT community.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The nation would be at peace and the world would be safer. The President himself has little legislative power, and Ron Paul is the complete opposite of the average politician - but I feel that he would use the veto on almost every piece of legislation that came to his desk except repeal bills and legislation he sponsored. The GOP would probably support Paul if he were to reach the Presidency.

The moderates, establishment and NeoCons wouldn't.

Perhaps, but at the end of the day the GOP is an extremely partisan establishment, and while it could turn into a sort of Jimmy Carter situation where his own party is vetoing his bills, the Republican Party tends to go with whatever their leader wants to do. The 80s GOP cut spending and taxes while preferring to stay out of foreign conflicts, which got turned mostly on its head when Bush became President. Despite the power of the neo-cons in Congress, I could imagine them softening their rhetoric and actions if Paul became President.

There's also a lot on the economic side of things that many Republicans are too afraid to touch in public that they'd be able to get behind if Ron publicly pushed them. Privatising Social Security, for example, is something the party wants to do but hasn't had much opportunity to push even when Bush was President. A freshly elected Ron Paul would have enough political capital, in 2015, to push such a proposal.

[Ravenflight]

*touches wood* don't jinxs something like that.

Don't worry, Ron Paul has a better chance of becoming King of England than President of the United States.

Hahaha.

[Big Jim P]

About zero. Thinking for oneself takes effort, something most people can't be arsed to expend.

Then how do they expect to change that which they find to be wrong?

They try to change what is wrong by swinging between the Dems and Republicans ever 4-8 years.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Then how do they expect to change that which they find to be wrong?

They try to change what is wrong by swinging between the Dems and Republicans ever 4-8 years.

It's not working, apparently.

[Big Jim P]

What we really need is a third-party libertarian.

Agreed. Those guys need to have ballot access. Isn't it denied to third parties in a federal law, even?

I am not sure about the law.

[Atlanticatia]

-snip-

Don't tolerate intolerance when people are being directly affected by that intolerance. If you tolerate intolerance, you're just as intolerant.

So, uh, do you know what tolerance even is?

tol·er·ance
ˈtäl(ə)rəns
noun
1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
"the tolerance of corruption"

You are the one being intolerant, my friend.

Eh, I don't tolerate racism or homophobia. Sorry 'bout it.

"Don't tolerate intolerance" is an idiom.

[Big Jim P]

They try to change what is wrong by swinging between the Dems and Republicans ever 4-8 years.

It's not working, apparently.

Well, in addition to being to lazy to think for themselves, most people are to stupid to even be able to.

[Pandeeria]

Ron Paul is completely awful.

[Atlanticatia]

Agreed. Those guys need to have ballot access. Isn't it denied to third parties in a federal law, even?

I am not sure about the law.

The situation in our electoral system is terrible for third parties, unfortunately. Sigh.

[Big Jim P]

Ron Paul is completely awful.

that didn't stop Obama or Bush.

Edit: An likely won't stop Hillary.