Ron Paul's legislative successes (or rather lack of successes)

Perhaps a review of how our government actually operates would be a good exercise for those of you on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

Congress (which is where your beloved Paul is now) make the laws. They write and edit all the laws. They are responsible for every single piece of Legislation that gets enacted.

If he is sooo righteous and effective, why would he choose to remove himself from that Legislative body and make himself totally ineffective by moving to the Executive Branch, where he will not have any effect on the laws that get written?

The President merely gives the thumbs up or down, he does NOT set the agenda, nor write the laws.

If you were real supporters, you'd want him to stay where he is, since that is the only place that allows him to affect the rules.

If this confuses you, rent 'school house rocks.'

Originally posted by rougeskut
I flagged this post just so more would see it and see the ridicules circular arguments you and others are using in trying to discredit somebody who is doing his damn well best to wake up all the walking sleeping people out there. Your constant insistance on proof of him being, "SUCCESSFUL", or not, can't possibly be proved until you define success. And obviously yours and your like have a different definition of success as do most of us here on ATS.

Please define "Success" then.


I define it as getting the things done that you are trying to get done. Ron Paul definately tried...he tried 464 times....and he failed 463 times. I'd call that FAILURE in any field. Apparently you have much lower standards.

So what is your definition of success?

Originally posted by jimnuggits
The Paulites are rabid now, but it is for their own good.

They remind me of me in 2000 when I was gung ho for Nader... Yipes.

Thanks for sharing petty smears, jimnuggits. Just kidding, jerk. Don't be a jerk though.

The sad fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is a bit like a mud puddle in the desert.

You're so thirsty that your willing to suck mud and call it Perrier. In the end, however, you are still sucking mud.

No, Ron Paul is a gem in the rough. Now you've gone from smears to downright ugly metaphors of zero value that add nothing to the discussion.

Paul is an aging, ineffective ideocrat with absolutely no chance of enacting any of his ideas.

As the commander in chief, there is a 100% chance all or nearly all his plans to put the troops back on our borders where they belong. That alone makes him the only one worth voting for even if all his other ideas are bad. Would we be living officially under fascism right now since the NODA has apparently passed, if Ron Paul were president now? No, because Paul would very obviously veto assaults like that.

Why do you think the GOP won't touch him?

Because Ron Paul forces the GOP to admit they screwed up so badly the country will financially implode in approximately 2018, and it will be half their fault. They can't live with their selves knowing that, so they live in denial.

If his own party won't give him the time of day, what makes you think he will have the support to enact all these pie in the sky ideas of his?

As his shoddy record indicates, he won't.

Corrupt criminals don't give honest people the time of day. His record is the best in the history of congress and that is well proven. The fact he didn't pass any new laws are proof of this. America needs the repeal of laws, not more laws. I'm sorry but if you think America needs a steady stream of new laws, well, you represent everything wrong with America. America needs to repeal laws, not add more laws. Sorry you support fascism so much by supporting more laws.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


How about how many times he was re-elected as a measure, or how many times he sold out to big corps, or maybe how he's now running for president and leading in a lot of polls,or lets try this one how about nobody can find anything truly damaging about him or his record during his time as a congressman, All these little things people keep coming up with are ridiculous, How about we talk about Rick Perry's racism ( the rock outside his hunting cabin) Or Newt's adultery, or Mitt's gambling how about we talk about that.

reply to post by phishfriar47


His "ideas" are not ahead of his time at all.

They are actually way way behind in the times. Anyone that wants to bring back segregation and open acceptable discrimination is NOT a forward thinker or visionary.

Also wanting to go back to a gold standard is not forward thinking...again...this is very very old thinking.

Ron Paul doesn't have "new" ideas...he has old ideas...ideas that we as a society decided long ago that were out dated and wrong.

reply to post by ChaseHall

Also look up how many earmarks were added to those bills he tried to get passed, as well as who wheels it would have greased instead of Americans I bet there pretty straight forward bills without millions going to different lobbied groups. Your research means nothing to me or his supporters.

Maybe you should go do some research on how much Ron Paul uses Earmarks...you are actually arguing agaisnt Ron Paul here and you don't even know it.

I know facts don't mean much to his die hard supporters...but it will mean something to those who haven't dedicated their souls to Ron Paul yet.

reply to post by seachange


Let me review.

I support fascism, I'm a jerk and Paul is the most successful Congressman ever.

Sounds like I touched a nerve.

No need for potshots at me, I'm just writing here.

Vote for him, I don't care, but realize that state plus corporate power equals Fascism.

What do you think will happen when Paul deregulates and lowers the tax burden of all corporations?

Mussolini would be proud.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I've dedicated my soul to the constitution as an Active Soldier in the Army so anyone who stands up to keep its Ideals alive and well has my vote. Anyone who wants the same things I do has my Vote. My soul in not dedicated to Dr. Paul but he is the only one willing to allow me to do my Job on american soil instead of foreign.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

If you understood civil liberties, you would see he hates abortion. But he has said he has no right to dictate to anyone what to do to with there bodies, hmmm sounds to me like he wouldn't try to overturn anything, he would let us choose what we want to do no matter what anyone including himself thinks about it. That should bother pro lifers more than pro choice-rs
What am i misunderstanding here?
He says no one has the right to tell you you can't do what you want.
How is that bad?
He doesn't like drugs either, but he has said many times, the government has no right to tell you how to live your life,
and you may think i am wrong, but how is the idea that you choose for yourself how to live your life is wrong?
Please answer that for me.
Do you want me to tell you what you can do? Because i sure as H3LL don't want you dictating to me what i can do.
Your arguments just don't make any sense.

reply to post by godfather420

You sure have been dedicated to hating on someone that is trying to give you back your freedoms and liberties. You know....trying to revert back to that nasty connstitution that it seems you hate so much.

I haven't lost and freedomes or liberties...have you??? Please list out the freedoms and liberties you have lost.

And Ron Paul would actually want to take away some of my freedoms...like he would want to make it so some business owners could decide not to serve me or let me in their business based on anything...race, gender, social status....anything. Thanks Ron Paul...I always wished I could live in a bigoted society

You've had like 40+ chances to give your claims some merit and all you have done is given people 40+ more reasons to vote the great guy the ron paul is.

These aren't "claims"...they are facts. I don't have to give them anymore merit than they already have.

He tried 464 times...he failed 463 times. Those are just the facts...sorry you don't like what the facts are showing.

reply to post by budcin

So i guess you feel Rosa Parks should have just went with the majority?
Did it matter if she was right?
I think we are having the same awakening now with Ron Paul as we did with Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks...you mean the one that Ron Paul voted against giving a medal of honor too???

Maybe we can compare him to MLK...you know...the person that Ron Paul voted against granting a holiday to???


Ron Paul is pro-discrimination....he doesn't seem to have a high opinion of darker skinned individuals...and he for sure doesn't like homosexuals.

But yeah...he is just like Rosa Parks

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by budcin

 

[quoteRosa Parks...you mean the one that Ron Paul voted against giving a medal of honor too???

Wow that's just wrong right there civilians cant receive the Medal Of Honor

Here is one I hadn't read,


And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?”

biggovernment.com...

the Congressman answered:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

In 2007, the Congressman actually faulted Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery in the Civil War: “He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them.”

weird,

reply to post by Battleline

From what I have seen it is you dodging legit questions that people are asking to get a sence of where your coming from. Sure the facts you have showen would look bad to someone who does not understand the system of legislation(witch I don't) but the people that do are asking YOU to explain your motive for this post and you just fall back on "this is not about me", well it also becomes about you when you are the OP making accusations against someone, so quit dodging the questions and act like a legit OP and not like just another "shill" sitting in a cubical.I mean at least RP tryed 400+ times and kept trying,what has your choise done?

This thread is about Ron Paul...that is the topic...please read the T&Cs if you need to refresher about staying on topic and discussing the topic and not the member.

I fully understand the legislative process...but that isn't even neccessary to see Ron Paul's failure. If anyone tries something 464 times and fails 463 times...yes...he is a failure. Any way you cut it, he is a failure.

My question to you is,does RP,s honesty and pure lack of flip flops,and the fact he has been the same through out his political carrier so we the people know what we should be getting as opposed to proven flip flopping clones that say what they think the people want to hear(or Obama, enough said) mean nothing to you?

Yes, it means something...it means I know 100% that I disagree with him on all of his domestice policies and it tells me that he has zero ability to compromise. Those two facts solidify that I will not be able to ever support him. IF he had shown any ability to compromise in the past...MAYBE I could support him...but his rigidness is a detriment to his ability to lead.

reply to post by seachange

In a congress where the author of bills is mostly the lawyers and lobbyists large corporations, simply looking at the number of laws passed by a specific person gives you a good sign of dishonesty and corruption.

Ron Paul may well have the most accomplished record in the history of the United States congress.

I LOVE THIS ARGUMENT.

Ron Paul's failure is a sign of his success.


Only someone who is a blind follower would make a claim like that.

He has never voted for a spending increase (unless counting earmarks as spending, which they are not).

Ummm...yes they are. That is like saying I participated in looting because the items were being looted anyway...I just thought they would be better in my home than someone elses

Your head is in the sand if you don't understand the laws that pass today in the US congress are nothing more than corruption on paper. Your lack of understanding is disturbing given how long you've been an ATS member. You need to wisen up to what goes on in congress and learn about the types of laws that congress passes on a daily basis. Try reading them or something.

I know exactly what goes on in congress...I live in the real world...not in a fantasy conspiracy world. I live in the system that exist...not the utopia that people wished there was.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by seachange

 

No need for potshots at me, I'm just writing here.

Fine, I won't call you a jerk any more and you can refrain from calling me a "rabid Paulite" - its obvious namecalling.

What do you think will happen when Paul deregulates and lowers the tax burden of all corporations?

Mussolini would be proud.

He can't do that as president. All he can do is bring the troops home and throw the government into gridlock by vetoing all the corruption (called "bills"). Corporations have no interest in Paul or they would be showering him with money and pumping him up in the news media. Lobbyists don't bother visiting his office.

De-regulation of banks? Not going to happen under Paul. The government banking system we have needs to be opened up to competition and Paul can make inroads in that direction, though most likely won't be able to get anything passed that does that.

A libertarian is going to see Ron Paul's record as the best in US history, or at least recent US history. He votes the right way on nearly everything. And if you think otherwise I'd be glad to share exactly why Paul voted the right way on any given bill.

Originally posted by ChaseHall
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

How about how many times he was re-elected as a measure, or how many times he sold out to big corps, or maybe how he's now running for president and leading in a lot of polls,or lets try this one how about nobody can find anything truly damaging about him or his record during his time as a congressman, All these little things people keep coming up with are ridiculous, How about we talk about Rick Perry's racism ( the rock outside his hunting cabin) Or Newt's adultery, or Mitt's gambling how about we talk about that.

Yes, he is getting re-elected because his only success in congress is to siphon money from the federal government into his own district. He is sooooooo against government spending...but he has no problem filling bills with pork for his own district

And let's not get crazy...he is not leading in "a lot" of polls.

You are free to talk about Rick Perry or Newt or Mitt...go ahead and make a thread of your own.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

The less government does, the better. And just alone with executive orders along with a competent attorney general, he can do a lot of stuff.

So you want him to just introduce gridlock...and you think that will "fix our country"???

And it also seems like you want him to circumvent the legislative process as much as he can...so much for the Constitution huh???

You do know that Congress doesn't need the President to pass bills right? The only thing I see if Ron Paul would be President is that we would see a record amount of veto override votes.

Gridlock!? Surely you jest.

You mean like those nice democrats who haven't passed a budget in over 1000 days now?

No budget and now ANOTHER request to raise the debt limit sure has done wonders to fix this country hasn't it.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who makes sense. And if he isn't elected and things really hit the crapper, you will be one of the first to admit that you were wrong and you should have listened to the rest of us.

Originally posted by ChaseHall

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by budcin

 

[quoteRosa Parks...you mean the one that Ron Paul voted against giving a medal of honor too???

Wow that's just wrong right there civilians cant receive the Medal Of Honor

You are right, my mistake...it was the Congressional Gold Medal...not the Medal of Honor.

And yes...Ron Paul voted against that. Are you denying that he did?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Ok now your getting pretty arrogant, first off your main topic is an indicator of nothing it means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of ones leadership capabilities and if you think it does you don't understand the legislative process like you claim. Second if you want to have a civil conversation laughing in someones face for there opinion isnt the best way to go when nothing you have presented has any basis for anyone not to support Dr. Paul. How about you do the same research that you did to Ron Paul's congressional record and compare that to all the other People running for the Office of President and then go back and see all the past Presidents congressional records and see what you come up with ( Obama's attendance alone is pretty funny) and then you'll relize that is a measure of nothing. Third Im out this conversation has turned from a civil debt to you just using the same old fact to shoot down everyone opinion do more research and present more evidence when starting a debt.