I think a good choice for an economic adviser to Ron Paul might be Bernard von NotHaus, the founder of Liberty Dollar (formerly Norfed), and the creator of the Liberty Dollar. Whether you are a supporter of the Liberty Dollar or not, von NotHaus is brilliant when it comes to monetary issues.
Let Us Suppose Ron Paul Wins
- Thread starter Waitone
- Start date
theberettaman
New member
Let us suppose ron paul wins?
VicePres. Paulie 'I got the gonnnnne-ja dude' Shore
Sec.State. Those 3 monkeys,hear no evil,see no evil and speak no evil.
Sec.Defense. Cindy Sheehan
Sec.Treasurey. Don't need one.
Sec.Health/Human Services. Oprah
Sec.Education. Nambla/aclu
Sec.Interior. Woody Harrelson
Sec.Homeland Security. Barney Fife
Whichever party controls the house and senate will be running he country.Ron Paul will have no support from either party,have no markers to call in,no leverage to sway congress or the senate,and the party in charge will run rough shot over him.No one is beholding to him and will just give him the middle finger and move on.
VicePres. Paulie 'I got the gonnnnne-ja dude' Shore
Sec.State. Those 3 monkeys,hear no evil,see no evil and speak no evil.
Sec.Defense. Cindy Sheehan
Sec.Treasurey. Don't need one.
Sec.Health/Human Services. Oprah
Sec.Education. Nambla/aclu
Sec.Interior. Woody Harrelson
Sec.Homeland Security. Barney Fife
Whichever party controls the house and senate will be running he country.Ron Paul will have no support from either party,have no markers to call in,no leverage to sway congress or the senate,and the party in charge will run rough shot over him.No one is beholding to him and will just give him the middle finger and move on.
All he needs is one third of Congress to sustain his vetoes, and the bully pulpit of the presidency can be useful in that respect.
President Andrew Jackson is reputed to have said, when the US Supreme Court had ruled that Georgia stole Cherokee lands, "they have made their decision, now let them enforce it."
Suppose that instead of that attitude being applied by a corrupt, venal, racist Democrat, it was applied on behalf of greater liberty and prosperity of the American people?
Suppose he appointed a pro-gun FBI Director? Suppose he exercised his executive power to rein in and punish executive-branch agencies, such as the BATFE, which exceed their authority and violate the Second Amendment while harassing legitimate businesses? Or the IRS?
FEMA was created by an executive order (12148), did you know that? It could likewise be abolished, and it would take a two-thirds majority of Congress to overturn it.
Or consider Executive Order 11110, for that matter, ordering that the Treasury have the power to bypass the Federal Reserve Banking system and issue United States Notes backed by silver bullion in possession of the Treasury.
President Andrew Jackson is reputed to have said, when the US Supreme Court had ruled that Georgia stole Cherokee lands, "they have made their decision, now let them enforce it."
Suppose that instead of that attitude being applied by a corrupt, venal, racist Democrat, it was applied on behalf of greater liberty and prosperity of the American people?
Suppose he appointed a pro-gun FBI Director? Suppose he exercised his executive power to rein in and punish executive-branch agencies, such as the BATFE, which exceed their authority and violate the Second Amendment while harassing legitimate businesses? Or the IRS?
FEMA was created by an executive order (12148), did you know that? It could likewise be abolished, and it would take a two-thirds majority of Congress to overturn it.
Or consider Executive Order 11110, for that matter, ordering that the Treasury have the power to bypass the Federal Reserve Banking system and issue United States Notes backed by silver bullion in possession of the Treasury.
The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
H. L. Mencken
One man could make a difference. Whether or not he can get elected, I am voting for him. I am unsure beyond that what the outcome will be, but if you don't vote for the guy you like most; the guy you think has the best ideas, and rather- you vote for the enemy of your enemy rather than your friend, I pity you and hope for better for your children. Elections aren't about teams. They are about which man's ideas you believe to be the ones who will bring you and your posterity the most peace, prosperity and liberty.
Elections are about who will set up a policy that you believe may benefit your children and grandchildren the most. Since we've been sending soldiers to die in the Middle East at least since 1958 and it has gotten us more violence and higher priced oil, I think I'll choose differently now.
Since my dollar won't buy nearly what it could in 1970 (the year I was born), I think I'll choose a guy with a different idea.
I will choose somebody not for being better suited to manage the disaster so much as somebody who may actually fix it or some of it. When all is said and done, I will vote for a man who I think will make me more free and that is all I want.
To me elections are not some sort of Machiavellian manouevering where I pick a guy based on odds of beating another who was selected by some who did the same. An election is not a nice way to bludgeon the opposition with my political views if I win. I am surprised at the general anger out there of folks who the mere mention of the candidates' name inspires them to become almost childlike and launch into attacks with no substance beyond "he can't win". That is a circular arguement and one that lacks any substance, logic or cogency. I backed Alan Keyes in 2000. He couldn't win and didn't, but I don't mind saying I voted my conscience. I'll back Paul this time around. I will walk away from the voting booth with a clear conscience again and a light heart.
H. L. Mencken
One man could make a difference. Whether or not he can get elected, I am voting for him. I am unsure beyond that what the outcome will be, but if you don't vote for the guy you like most; the guy you think has the best ideas, and rather- you vote for the enemy of your enemy rather than your friend, I pity you and hope for better for your children. Elections aren't about teams. They are about which man's ideas you believe to be the ones who will bring you and your posterity the most peace, prosperity and liberty.
Elections are about who will set up a policy that you believe may benefit your children and grandchildren the most. Since we've been sending soldiers to die in the Middle East at least since 1958 and it has gotten us more violence and higher priced oil, I think I'll choose differently now.
Since my dollar won't buy nearly what it could in 1970 (the year I was born), I think I'll choose a guy with a different idea.
I will choose somebody not for being better suited to manage the disaster so much as somebody who may actually fix it or some of it. When all is said and done, I will vote for a man who I think will make me more free and that is all I want.
To me elections are not some sort of Machiavellian manouevering where I pick a guy based on odds of beating another who was selected by some who did the same. An election is not a nice way to bludgeon the opposition with my political views if I win. I am surprised at the general anger out there of folks who the mere mention of the candidates' name inspires them to become almost childlike and launch into attacks with no substance beyond "he can't win". That is a circular arguement and one that lacks any substance, logic or cogency. I backed Alan Keyes in 2000. He couldn't win and didn't, but I don't mind saying I voted my conscience. I'll back Paul this time around. I will walk away from the voting booth with a clear conscience again and a light heart.
kjm,
Amen brother. The truth is a powerful sword. Great Menken quote too, its a keeper. Made me think of the last two lines of an old hippy poem called "Gimmiesome Roy" by Shel Silverstein. Went like this
"It seems, Lord", says Fats, "it's always the same, old men or bright-eyed youth,
It's always easier to sell them some s**t than it is to give them the truth."
Amen brother. The truth is a powerful sword. Great Menken quote too, its a keeper. Made me think of the last two lines of an old hippy poem called "Gimmiesome Roy" by Shel Silverstein. Went like this
"It seems, Lord", says Fats, "it's always the same, old men or bright-eyed youth,
It's always easier to sell them some s**t than it is to give them the truth."
grymster2007
New member
I think it took ~$5.19 to buy in the year 2006 what $1 would buy in 1970. Given that I made a few hundred dollars in 1970 and I now make at least five times that, I would say inflation has not been too bad. And, I'm pretty sure that inflation is driven by forces mosly out of the president's control.
waitone,
This question is completely unanswerable and unfair. There is no candidate out there who has posted their choices for cabinet positions a year ahead of time. What's Rudy's choices for his cabinet? Or Obama? Or Clinton? Or any of 'em?
I'm sure there's a point to make somewhere in there, but this question is fundamentally silly IMO.
This question is completely unanswerable and unfair. There is no candidate out there who has posted their choices for cabinet positions a year ahead of time. What's Rudy's choices for his cabinet? Or Obama? Or Clinton? Or any of 'em?
I'm sure there's a point to make somewhere in there, but this question is fundamentally silly IMO.
I am asking a very simple question. I fail to see the difficulty Paul supporters have in simple answers. Paul will have to staff his administration with someone from somewhere. The sources of the talent and even some of the names in the traditional parties are well-known. Paul is running like the guy on the outside in spite of his self-designation of republican. If he was part of the republican establishment we know where he would go and even some of names would be fairly predictable. But he is not an establishment politician. He is running against republicans as much as he is running against democrats. That said, if he wins he will have to go somewhere for the talent to run his administration. I simply want to know where he will go and if possible who will it be. Traditionally a candidate's closest advisors show up in the cabinet or high level administration positions. A foreign policy adviser shows up at State. A legal adviser shows as attorney general. A member of a public policy foundation can show as head of HEW.
Back to Paul. What groups and individuals are key to his brain trust. Who is his foreign policy adviser? Does he have a military adviser? Who whispers sweet legals in his ear? Who in his organization keeps the braying jackasses of the media under control? The rap against Bush II is that his administration would look a lot like Bush I. The rap against Carter is his administration was infested by globalist NGO's. The rap against Reagan was that he went to the Nixon well for some of his talent. The rap against Hillary is she will go back to Clinton I for talent.
I think my question is perfectly fair. I don't need to itemize the list from establishment politicians because I have a real good idea where they would hire their talent. Paul makes himself out as the un-establishment candidate which I will buy off on for the moment. That said, I have no clue where Paul's talent base resides. I have no idea who is supporting him from a governance and policy standpoint. Let me cite two simple examples. Paul wants us out of Iraq. Fair enough. Who is the adviser offering him the geopolitical view that such a position would result in acceptable consequences should it actually be implemented? Another example, Paul expressed the view that the FBI should be dispensed with. Who is telling him such a policy action point is advisable? I can sympathize with his libertarian leanings. However, at some point the philosophy of libertarianism has to meet reality. That meeting point is governance. Who will he rely on in his administration to implement his philosophical views . . . . . . or is he of the view that he does not need policy adviser.
My question is quite fair because the answer will provide a lot of answers to the question of "What kind of president will he be".
Back to Paul. What groups and individuals are key to his brain trust. Who is his foreign policy adviser? Does he have a military adviser? Who whispers sweet legals in his ear? Who in his organization keeps the braying jackasses of the media under control? The rap against Bush II is that his administration would look a lot like Bush I. The rap against Carter is his administration was infested by globalist NGO's. The rap against Reagan was that he went to the Nixon well for some of his talent. The rap against Hillary is she will go back to Clinton I for talent.
I think my question is perfectly fair. I don't need to itemize the list from establishment politicians because I have a real good idea where they would hire their talent. Paul makes himself out as the un-establishment candidate which I will buy off on for the moment. That said, I have no clue where Paul's talent base resides. I have no idea who is supporting him from a governance and policy standpoint. Let me cite two simple examples. Paul wants us out of Iraq. Fair enough. Who is the adviser offering him the geopolitical view that such a position would result in acceptable consequences should it actually be implemented? Another example, Paul expressed the view that the FBI should be dispensed with. Who is telling him such a policy action point is advisable? I can sympathize with his libertarian leanings. However, at some point the philosophy of libertarianism has to meet reality. That meeting point is governance. Who will he rely on in his administration to implement his philosophical views . . . . . . or is he of the view that he does not need policy adviser.
My question is quite fair because the answer will provide a lot of answers to the question of "What kind of president will he be".
grymster2007
New member
It took $4.12 to buy in 2002 what it took $1 to buy in 1970 and $1.12 in 2006 to buy what it took $1 to buy 2002. Not saying that spending billions on the Iraq war is a good idea, but despite his efforts seems inflation is quite out of the president's control.
Oh, really? And had Sam Brownback not dropped out of the race, who would have been his secretary of state?
This is ludicrous.
Alright...with the express understanding that he hasn't confided his cabinet choices to me, here's some wild guesses:
DHS: Chris Leithner
Treasury: Mark Skousen
State: Colin Powell
Defense: Wesley Clark
Unregistered
Moderator
Have any candidates named who their cabinet would be? If not, then why is it important for RP to do that at this point?
Duly noted that the question regarding the "well known stable" of potential cabinet/staff members for the so-called leading candidates has been avoided.
To advance the discussion, here's a web page for the Ron Paul campaign staff:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/
Anyone can google the names on this page, and draw conclusions.
I have to work today, can't play on the internet.
To advance the discussion, here's a web page for the Ron Paul campaign staff:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/
Anyone can google the names on this page, and draw conclusions.
I have to work today, can't play on the internet.
Waitone,
No, his staff (extremely tiny) is drawn mainly from the vast pool of grassroots supporters. They have no aspirations beyond getting him elected.
Is that how you're saying it works in the other campaigns; the candidates fill their cabinets from within their campaign staff?
Seems to me that that's not how it was done last time around. I remember something about the president-elect delegating the task to his second-in-command, who then filled the staff from his think tank.
The names I mentioned are merely like-minded experts in their fields; some of whom he has cited by name in the past.
Publius,
Funny you should mention Walter Williams; I remember his name being kicked around earlier this year as a favorite for the VP slot. Dr. Paul said in an interview that his running mate would be "somebody like Walter Williams".
No, his staff (extremely tiny) is drawn mainly from the vast pool of grassroots supporters. They have no aspirations beyond getting him elected.
Is that how you're saying it works in the other campaigns; the candidates fill their cabinets from within their campaign staff?
Seems to me that that's not how it was done last time around. I remember something about the president-elect delegating the task to his second-in-command, who then filled the staff from his think tank.
The names I mentioned are merely like-minded experts in their fields; some of whom he has cited by name in the past.
Publius,
Funny you should mention Walter Williams; I remember his name being kicked around earlier this year as a favorite for the VP slot. Dr. Paul said in an interview that his running mate would be "somebody like Walter Williams".
Last edited:
If you examine Ron Paul from what he has said an written he is the guy we need in the White House. He is miles ahead of the other candidates on the problems we face. Like when you were a little sick kid and you didnt want to take the terrible tasting medicine even though it would help make you well. We are like the ostrich who keeps sticking his head in the sand and saying everything is ok.