I, for one, think it's the epitome of awesome watching Paul fanatics hurl invectives at people asking legitimate questions, and say they just "believe whatever MSM tells them", yet can't provide a single answer as to how Paul intends to implement any of his ideas, other than just believing what Ron Paul tells them.
I, for one, think it's the epitome of awesome watching Paul fanatics hurl invectives at people asking legitimate questions, and say they just "believe whatever MSM tells them", yet can't provide a single answer as to how Paul intends to implement any of his ideas, other than just believing what Ron Paul tells them. Seriously, kudos all around, guys.
What legitimate questions are people asking? "How ya' gun get all dat stuffs dun???" Is not a legitimate question as much as it is generalized moronic prattle.
Originally posted by windstrike1 Originally posted by Coldmeat I, for one, think it's the epitome of awesome watching Paul fanatics hurl invectives at people asking legitimate questions, and say they just "believe whatever MSM tells them", yet can't provide a single answer as to how Paul intends to implement any of his ideas, other than just believing what Ron Paul tells them. Seriously, kudos all around, guys.
What legitimate questions are people asking? "How ya' gun get all dat stuffs dun???" Is not a legitimate question as much as it is generalized moronic prattle.
See. Rather than make an intelligent comment, you resort to childish stupidity.
Because you have no answer? You think, perhaps, that the best way to gather people to your cause is by being a condescending prick, and insulting their intelligence?
It's pretty damn simple. Ron Paul says he's going to do X, Y, and Z. Some people go "Weee! I vote for him!". Some people stop, and ask, "Well, that's great and all, but how the hell is he actually going to do that?" Color me a pessimist, but I just don't see Congress gleefully going along with his idea to do away with income tax, or otherwise dismantling various parts of the Government. While he may be within his scope to bring the troops back from Iraq, and back off of the current attempts to escalate hostilities with Iran, and I think that's just jim dandy, I would like to know exactly how he intends to do all the other things he's promised, just as I'd want to know how exactly any other candidate intends to implement their campaign promises, other than just blindly accepting at their word.
It's still Of the People, By the People, For the People, right? As such, I sure as shit want to know how the officials I am to elect intend to run the country I live in. Or are you saying that the voters should just accept whatever a politician says, and not ask questions, or dig deeper?
If you truley want something changed or passed then its not just the job for youre elected official. Becuase we all know most of thoes officials have sold use down the river to make them self richer. Its part of youre job let youre elected officials know yorue views and remind them they work for you and not corporations. So Ron Paul may not be able to get his stuff passed by him self but if US citizens hold their elected officials accountable then we can get stuff changed. Congressmen vow to uphold the constitution when they are swarn into office, they do a piss poor job at that. Cant think that since you vote in every election youre helping, democracy requires more work then that. So if you just want to vote for a President once every 4 years and expect them to do every thing you want then you will get little or nothing out of it.
But no way am i voting for a big government, liberl, CFR canident.
But no way am i voting for a big government, liberl, CFR canident.
Before you decide to vote for someone because “they are against big government” you need to ask them what they are going to cut. The fact is that the US budget contains more $$$ in items that absolutely positively will not be cut then it has in revenue.
Federal Government does way to much unconstutional stuff. Give the power back to the states.
Close, but not quite. You think one government having power is bad? Try 50 mini-governments, all with their own agendas in one supposed union.
No, you give the power back to the people. The only way to do that is to keep the Federal government, but as was brought up above concerning Australia, you remind that Federal government where the decisions should be coming from: the majority vote of the people, not the consensus of the politicians employed by the people.
Well the Federal and State Government should both be small, but the Federal Government has take alot of power from the state. Stats should make their own drug policys, wellfare (if you want that kinda stuff), and stuff along that lines. But alot of stuff needs to be changed with the current government.
Putting the states in control of their own operations would create a marketplace of ideas where the cream would rise to the top. Everyone moving to California cause they like such & such plan? Maybe other states will adopt that popular plan to compete. On the other hand, federal government dictating what every state does ends up with no competition of ideas. Just a "we say so, so do it" course of action. No competition of ideas, and no cream rising to the top.
Ron Paul's ok. We need to end the drug war. We need to curb some taxes. We need a change in foreign policy, and especially in privacy regarding the internet. I guess the main problem I have is that all the people who keep pushing him on me have no idea what they're talking about. It's like; ok cool, Ron Pauls' the internet candidate, but they actually have no idea about his whole platform. They will assure me he is for nationalized healthcare, etc. when it's obvious that he's not. And the same people that will vote for him, will not vote for other offices that are needed to facilitate the changes they desire. It's like they think if they just vote for president, Paul can make all these changes on his own, which is crap, and if it was true, would disturb me because I don't want one official to have that much power.
Originally posted by Dunlopez Ron Paul's ok. We need to end the drug war. We need to curb some taxes. We need a change in foreign policy, and especially in privacy regarding the internet. I guess the main problem I have is that all the people who keep pushing him on me have no idea what they're talking about. It's like; ok cool, Ron Pauls' the internet candidate, but they actually have no idea about his whole platform. They will assure me he is for nationalized healthcare, etc. when it's obvious that he's not. And the same people that will vote for him, will not vote for other offices that are needed to facilitate the changes they desire. It's like they think if they just vote for president, Paul can make all these changes on his own, which is crap, and if it was true, would disturb me because I don't want one official to have that much power.
yep, it's funny when people say they like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich... when they are polar opposites on every single issue (basically) except Iraq.
Originally posted by Zikiel Senate and ethics?... Really now.. The Senate works for itself and itself alone, Paul hasn't got a chance of passing anything on them.
Very true sadly as much as I want this country to go back to the principles it was founded on, and even if Ron Paul isn't just blowing smoke. The problem is that each and every one of his motions to do things for the better can easily be put down by the senate the senate would see him as a threat and would basically turn him into a lame duck presiedent
You obviously dont know how the current money system works if you don't want it to change.
Educate yourself.
Right, because if someone doesn't support Ron Paul's positions it's because they're uneducated, amiright?
Originally posted by windstrike1
What legitimate questions are people asking? "How ya' gun get all dat stuffs dun???" Is not a legitimate question as much as it is generalized moronic prattle.
It is a legitimate question and that you don't consider it to be one speaks volumes about your own ignorance than it does anyone else's. The U.S. Government is a three branched institution, I've already discussed why Ron Paul's veto would quickly become worthless if he's going to use it every time something he considers unconstitutional pops up. Is it unfortunate that the real world works that way? Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that it does. A President must have some support from Congress to be effective.
Originally posted by windstrike1
Oh yeah, top priority: Explain in detail the plan of action and inner working of all plans to Infliction. He must be told. Thats the only way things can work is if random internet dude gets all the details.... Look into it or remain in ignorance. Its your choice "Internet dude". Nobody gives two shits which way you go with it.
With supporters like you, Ron Paul doesn't even need enemies! Of course if we don't know how Ron Paul plans to implement his plans that has to be because we haven't "looked into it". It can't be because we've had to put up with the vitriolic embellishment, random videos, and repetitive posting of his positions by his supporters for the last year and are tired of being fed their crap which lacks substance.
Originally posted by Rezora
I've only seen totally retarded arguments against Ron Paul, you've not even looked into his claims yet you make claim after claim based on lies you conjure up about him, that's idiotic. The way you guys go on it seems you don't even know how your country is actually run just listen to whatever mainstream media tells you.
It sounds to me like you Ron Paul supporters don't even know how your country is run considering how you can't even answer the simple question of how Ron Paul intends to pass his reforms through a hostile Congress. Again, if we don't support Ron Paul it's because we've been brainwashed by the mainstream media, amiright? It can't be because we think for ourselves and don't accept everything someone says just because they say it?Is it an accident that so many Ron Paul supporters also buy into conspiracy theories hook, line, and sinker?
Originally posted by Nasica
If the American people vote him into power based on those policies. Would it not be unethical for the Senate to block those changes. When you vote in Ron Paul, arnt you not also saying "I support his policies".
If the majority of the people support his policies, for what reason would any of the houses block that motion.
That's just not the way the U.S. Government works and frankly I'm glad it doesn't work that way. The Congress wouldn't be doing its job if it wasn't acting as a check against the Executive. It sounds like you expect something more along the lines of a parliament and prime minister. Or a dictatorship where the legislative branch is merely a formality.
That said, if Ron Paul supporters were serious about reforming government they would also be supporting and trying to get elected Ron Paul style governors, senators, and representatives. Without that support base Ron Paul would be a lame duck simply because he doesn't have wide support from either party.
A President must have some support from Congress to be effective.
I think you have not been keeping up with current events. The president now has the power to dismiss Congress entirely, thanks to the patriotic work of George W.
Aww yeah go RP. Lets get rid of taxes and welfare progamms.
Hail Neo, full of pwnage, Morpheus is with thee Blessed art thou among Zion, and blessed is the roundhouse against Smith. Holy Neo, pray for us now, and at the hour of Victory, Amen.
A President must have some support from Congress to be effective.
I think you have not been keeping up with current events. The president now has the power to dismiss Congress entirely, thanks to the patriotic work of George W.
I'm assuming you're going to back up your claim with some evidence from a legitimate source (let's start with an actual copy of whatever law you think gives the Executive the power to dismiss the Legislative). Let's ignore for one second the fact that no President short of one with a death wish would ever exercise such authority. I mean just making the claim without providing evidence would be reckless and irresponsible to the extreme.
Honestly...I was hoping you would give an answer to how Ron Paul plans to pass his reforms through Congress without support from either party...but I guess you can't or won't do that. Don't be surprised if people don't waste a vote for your candidate.
Seems awfully undemocratic when 218 people can nullify the votes of 140 million. Whats the point of your president anyway? The power of veto, and thats it?
So Americans shouldnt vote for a candidate they support, they are forced to vote for a candidate congress supports, is that what your saying?
So you have a congress who doesnt support the vote of the majority and
A President whos only job is to veto anything he doesnt like.
And a president, no matter how popular, who only gets 2 terms to do it all in.
Thats one awefully wierd democratic process.
Well for one thing if people want to reform government than they're going to have to elect Senators and Representatives that are going to push those reforms, the President cannot and was never meant to be able to do it alone. The President can make all the promises he wants to get elected, but in the end most of what the candidates like Ron Paul are pushing for is under the umbrella of Congress. Should the Congress which is also elected not represent the interests of their constituents just because the President won the majority of the votes? That would be a tyranny of the majority and that's precisely why the U.S. Government is set up the way it is, to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
The President's powers are specific. He is the Commander and Chief of the U.S. Military in addition to being the Chief Diplomat, he has the responsibility for appointing some members of the Judiciary, and he has the responsibility for signing or vetoing bills that CONGRESS presents to him. If a President like Ron Paul wants to push his reforms he's going to have to have someone in the Congress pushing it for him in addition to having enough votes to pass them. Vice versa, if he lacks support than his vetoes will be constantly overturned.
The Executive and Legislative are separate in the United States. They are elected separately for a reason, and they are elected to do different jobs which is why I say if Ron Paul supporters were serious they would be pushing for the election of legislative candidates that are sympathetic to their cause.
Seems awfully undemocratic when 218 people can nullify the votes of 140 million. That is why we are a Republic, not a democracy. The voters are actually voting for Electors in the Electorial College. Whats the point of your president anyway? The power of veto, and thats it? He is the Chief Executive Officer in the United States, and is in charge of all the federal bureaucracy. The Congress in charge of legislation, and approving the budget to operate the Federal bureaucracy. The power of the veto is just a small portion of the duties.
So Americans shouldnt vote for a candidate they support, they are forced to vote for a candidate congress supports, is that what your saying? Often times Americans do not get to vote for the candidate they support, because the political parties chose who the final candidates will be. Congress is really not the determining factor, as much as the political donor class, which pays for the campaign advertisements, is. Congress can campaign for a President, which rarely happens, usually the president is campaigning to get friendly members of Congress elected.
So you have a congress who doesnt support the vote of the majority and
A President whos only job is to veto anything he doesnt like. In practice nobody really gives a damn what the majority of the people say/want. Congress supports the special interests (political donor class) that gives them money, the President supports special interests (political donor class) that gives him money. When the views of the two special interest groups collide, something gets vetoed.
And a president, no matter how popular, who only gets 2 terms to do it all in. This way we give a new person a shot at greed and corruption. It's the learning curve, it takes a while to learn how to steal really big.
Thats one awefully wierd democratic process. Agreed. basically we rebelled and threw out a bunch of corrupt British shyster lawyers turned politician so we could be governed by a bunch of corrupt American shyster lawyers turned politician. We like it much better when it's our own stealing us blind. The vast majority of Americans want to keep our government (as far as possible away from us).
Seems awfully undemocratic when 218 people can nullify the votes of 140 million. Whats the point of your president anyway? The power of veto, and thats it?
So Americans shouldnt vote for a candidate they support, they are forced to vote for a candidate congress supports, is that what your saying?
So you have a congress who doesnt support the vote of the majority and
A President whos only job is to veto anything he doesnt like.
And a president, no matter how popular, who only gets 2 terms to do it all in.
Thats one awefully wierd democratic process.
Well for one thing if people want to reform government than they're going to have to elect Senators and Representatives that are going to push those reforms. The President can make all the promises he wants to get elected, but in the end most of what the candidates like Ron Paul are pushing for is under the umbrella of Congress. Should the Congress which is also elected not represent the interests of their constituents just because the President won the majority of the votes? That would be a tyranny of the majority and that's precisely why the U.S. Government is set up the way it is, to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
The President's powers are specific. He is the Commander and Chief of the U.S. Military in addition to being the Chief Diplomat, he has the responsibility for appointing some members of the Judiciary, and he has the responsibility for signing or vetoing bills that CONGRESS presents to him. If a President like Ron Paul wants to push his reforms he's going to have to have someone in the Congress pushing it for him in addition to having enough votes to pass them. Vice versa, if he lacks support than his vetoes will be constantly overturned.
The Executive and Legislative are separate in the United States. They are elected separately for a reason, and they are elected to do different jobs which is why I say if Ron Paul supporters were serious they would be pushing for the election of legislative candidates that are sympathetic to their cause.
Civics Lesson over
So a President isnt a member of either house in your system, does he sit in either house?
And when you vote you have 3 ballots, presidential, and the 2 houses of congress ?
And then congressmen (not the president) put forward ideas to the HoR which then get voted on and if passed go to the Senate? What happens if the senate turn it down, does it go back to HoR for ratification ?
How do you sort out differences in the houses?
Is there a Double Dissolution?
Or does the Senate have final say, and sends bills to the rubbish heap?
The President is not a member of either house nor does he sit in either of them because the Legislative is completely independent of the Executive and the President has other roles that do not involve him sitting in on legislation (he's not a Prime Minister, the closest thing to that would the Speaker of the House), though the Vice President also serves as the President of the Senate but that's only to be a tie-breaking vote (it's mostly a ceremonial title). There's only one election day and ballot with the President being elected every 4 years, the House of Representatives being elected every 2 years, and 1/3 of the Senate being elected every 6 years.
Representatives (HoR) and Senators (Senate) can both introduce legislation which is drafted, debated, and voted on in Committee (depending on what the legislation covers). Only after passing Committee does the legislation get voted on by the HoR or the Senate. Either house can introduce legislation but it requires both houses approving it, if either of them says NO it goes back to the drawing board.
This is fairly different from a parliamentary style government in which one house often has the power to introduce legislation but another house has oversight and is able to shoot it down (essentially fulfilling the role that the President does in the U.S.). The U.S. Congress is coequal though.
Even though all appropriations bills must originate in the HoR there is no Double Dissolution like in Australia. That's why you'll never hear in the news anything about "dissolving the government" in the United States like you do in parliamentary nations.
So a President isnt a member of either house in your system, does he sit in either house? No, the President has no direct authority within Congress. The Vice President does. The Vice President chairs the Senate. The only time he votes is if there is a tie vote (50 for, 50 against) in the Senate. Otherwise, the Senate performs its daily duties without the Vice President. And when you vote you have 3 ballots, presidential, and the 2 houses of congress ? Edit. Korusus' explanation of House and Senate election terms is correct.
And then congressmen (not the president) put forward ideas to the HoR which then get voted on and if passed go to the Senate? Legislation can be initiated in either the House or the Senate except for appropriation legislation. That must start in the House. What happens if the senate turn it down, does it go back to HoR for ratification ? Legislation must pass both houses of Congress without modification. If the HoR votes for a Bill it is then sent to the Senate. The Senate can vote for it, or against it. The Senate may make changes to the Bill, but if they do it goes back to the House and must pass the House again. This continues until the Bill is either dropped or a compromise is reached.
How do you sort out differences in the houses? Compromise. Or they butt heads. Is there a Double Dissolution? No, both the Senate and House members are elected for specific term periods. There are no do-overs. The Congress can not be dissolved by the President or the Supreme Court.
Or does the Senate have final say, and sends bills to the rubbish heap? Explained above.
The founders or the U.S.A. intended that there be conflicts between the different branches of the government. Compromise is the end result but not necessarily their intention.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Hmmm, 15% of Iowa precincts reporting in, and Paul still sitting at 11%. Not a terribly auspicious start. Hell, Fred Thompson has him beat at this point.
Is the magical internet Ron Paul zealot brigade just waiting for the last moment to spring their cunning trap?
Edit: 25%, and still sitting at 11%. Things are getting grimmer.
Comments
I, for one, think it's the epitome of awesome watching Paul fanatics hurl invectives at people asking legitimate questions, and say they just "believe whatever MSM tells them", yet can't provide a single answer as to how Paul intends to implement any of his ideas, other than just believing what Ron Paul tells them.
Seriously, kudos all around, guys.
What legitimate questions are people asking? "How ya' gun get all dat stuffs dun???" Is not a legitimate question as much as it is generalized moronic prattle.
See. Rather than make an intelligent comment, you resort to childish stupidity.
Because you have no answer? You think, perhaps, that the best way to gather people to your cause is by being a condescending prick, and insulting their intelligence?
It's pretty damn simple. Ron Paul says he's going to do X, Y, and Z. Some people go "Weee! I vote for him!". Some people stop, and ask, "Well, that's great and all, but how the hell is he actually going to do that?" Color me a pessimist, but I just don't see Congress gleefully going along with his idea to do away with income tax, or otherwise dismantling various parts of the Government. While he may be within his scope to bring the troops back from Iraq, and back off of the current attempts to escalate hostilities with Iran, and I think that's just jim dandy, I would like to know exactly how he intends to do all the other things he's promised, just as I'd want to know how exactly any other candidate intends to implement their campaign promises, other than just blindly accepting at their word.
It's still Of the People, By the People, For the People, right? As such, I sure as shit want to know how the officials I am to elect intend to run the country I live in. Or are you saying that the voters should just accept whatever a politician says, and not ask questions, or dig deeper?
Senate and ethics?... Really now.. The Senate works for itself and itself alone, Paul hasn't got a chance of passing anything on them.
If you truley want something changed or passed then its not just the job for youre elected official. Becuase we all know most of thoes officials have sold use down the river to make them self richer. Its part of youre job let youre elected officials know yorue views and remind them they work for you and not corporations. So Ron Paul may not be able to get his stuff passed by him self but if US citizens hold their elected officials accountable then we can get stuff changed. Congressmen vow to uphold the constitution when they are swarn into office, they do a piss poor job at that. Cant think that since you vote in every election youre helping, democracy requires more work then that. So if you just want to vote for a President once every 4 years and expect them to do every thing you want then you will get little or nothing out of it.
But no way am i voting for a big government, liberl, CFR canident.
Before you decide to vote for someone because “they are against big government” you need to ask them what they are going to cut. The fact is that the US budget contains more $$$ in items that absolutely positively will not be cut then it has in revenue.
Federal Government does way to much unconstutional stuff. Give the power back to the states.
Close, but not quite. You think one government having power is bad? Try 50 mini-governments, all with their own agendas in one supposed union.
No, you give the power back to the people. The only way to do that is to keep the Federal government, but as was brought up above concerning Australia, you remind that Federal government where the decisions should be coming from: the majority vote of the people, not the consensus of the politicians employed by the people.
Well the Federal and State Government should both be small, but the Federal Government has take alot of power from the state. Stats should make their own drug policys, wellfare (if you want that kinda stuff), and stuff along that lines. But alot of stuff needs to be changed with the current government.
Putting the states in control of their own operations would create a marketplace of ideas where the cream would rise to the top. Everyone moving to California cause they like such & such plan? Maybe other states will adopt that popular plan to compete. On the other hand, federal government dictating what every state does ends up with no competition of ideas. Just a "we say so, so do it" course of action. No competition of ideas, and no cream rising to the top.
Ron Paul's ok. We need to end the drug war. We need to curb some taxes. We need a change in foreign policy, and especially in privacy regarding the internet. I guess the main problem I have is that all the people who keep pushing him on me have no idea what they're talking about. It's like; ok cool, Ron Pauls' the internet candidate, but they actually have no idea about his whole platform. They will assure me he is for nationalized healthcare, etc. when it's obvious that he's not. And the same people that will vote for him, will not vote for other offices that are needed to facilitate the changes they desire. It's like they think if they just vote for president, Paul can make all these changes on his own, which is crap, and if it was true, would disturb me because I don't want one official to have that much power.
yep, it's funny when people say they like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich... when they are polar opposites on every single issue (basically) except Iraq.
Very true sadly
as much as I want this country to go back to the principles it was founded on, and even if Ron Paul isn't just blowing smoke. The problem is that each and every one of his motions to do things for the better can easily be put down by the senate 
the senate would see him as a threat and would basically turn him into a lame duck presiedent 
You obviously dont know how the current money system works if you don't want it to change.That's one damn fine reason to not vote for Ron Paul.
Educate yourself.
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
Right, because if someone doesn't support Ron Paul's positions it's because they're uneducated, amiright?
It is a legitimate question and that you don't consider it to be one speaks volumes about your own ignorance than it does anyone else's. The U.S. Government is a three branched institution, I've already discussed why Ron Paul's veto would quickly become worthless if he's going to use it every time something he considers unconstitutional pops up. Is it unfortunate that the real world works that way? Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that it does. A President must have some support from Congress to be effective.
With supporters like you, Ron Paul doesn't even need enemies! Of course if we don't know how Ron Paul plans to implement his plans that has to be because we haven't "looked into it". It can't be because we've had to put up with the vitriolic embellishment, random videos, and repetitive posting of his positions by his supporters for the last year and are tired of being fed their crap which lacks substance.
It sounds to me like you Ron Paul supporters don't even know how your country is run considering how you can't even answer the simple question of how Ron Paul intends to pass his reforms through a hostile Congress. Again, if we don't support Ron Paul it's because we've been brainwashed by the mainstream media, amiright? It can't be because we think for ourselves and don't accept everything someone says just because they say it? Is it an accident that so many Ron Paul supporters also buy into conspiracy theories hook, line, and sinker?
That's just not the way the U.S. Government works and frankly I'm glad it doesn't work that way. The Congress wouldn't be doing its job if it wasn't acting as a check against the Executive. It sounds like you expect something more along the lines of a parliament and prime minister. Or a dictatorship where the legislative branch is merely a formality.
That said, if Ron Paul supporters were serious about reforming government they would also be supporting and trying to get elected Ron Paul style governors, senators, and representatives. Without that support base Ron Paul would be a lame duck simply because he doesn't have wide support from either party.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
I think you have not been keeping up with current events. The president now has the power to dismiss Congress entirely, thanks to the patriotic work of George W.
Aww yeah go RP. Lets get rid of taxes and welfare progamms.
Hail Neo, full of pwnage, Morpheus is with thee
Blessed art thou among Zion, and blessed is the roundhouse against Smith.
Holy Neo, pray for us now, and at the hour of Victory, Amen.
I think you have not been keeping up with current events. The president now has the power to dismiss Congress entirely, thanks to the patriotic work of George W.
I'm assuming you're going to back up your claim with some evidence from a legitimate source (let's start with an actual copy of whatever law you think gives the Executive the power to dismiss the Legislative). Let's ignore for one second the fact that no President short of one with a death wish would ever exercise such authority. I mean just making the claim without providing evidence would be reckless and irresponsible to the extreme.Honestly...I was hoping you would give an answer to how Ron Paul plans to pass his reforms through Congress without support from either party...but I guess you can't or won't do that. Don't be surprised if people don't waste a vote for your candidate.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
Well for one thing if people want to reform government than they're going to have to elect Senators and Representatives that are going to push those reforms, the President cannot and was never meant to be able to do it alone. The President can make all the promises he wants to get elected, but in the end most of what the candidates like Ron Paul are pushing for is under the umbrella of Congress. Should the Congress which is also elected not represent the interests of their constituents just because the President won the majority of the votes? That would be a tyranny of the majority and that's precisely why the U.S. Government is set up the way it is, to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
The President's powers are specific. He is the Commander and Chief of the U.S. Military in addition to being the Chief Diplomat, he has the responsibility for appointing some members of the Judiciary, and he has the responsibility for signing or vetoing bills that CONGRESS presents to him. If a President like Ron Paul wants to push his reforms he's going to have to have someone in the Congress pushing it for him in addition to having enough votes to pass them. Vice versa, if he lacks support than his vetoes will be constantly overturned.
The Executive and Legislative are separate in the United States. They are elected separately for a reason, and they are elected to do different jobs which is why I say if Ron Paul supporters were serious they would be pushing for the election of legislative candidates that are sympathetic to their cause.
Civics Lesson over
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
Well for one thing if people want to reform government than they're going to have to elect Senators and Representatives that are going to push those reforms. The President can make all the promises he wants to get elected, but in the end most of what the candidates like Ron Paul are pushing for is under the umbrella of Congress. Should the Congress which is also elected not represent the interests of their constituents just because the President won the majority of the votes? That would be a tyranny of the majority and that's precisely why the U.S. Government is set up the way it is, to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
The President's powers are specific. He is the Commander and Chief of the U.S. Military in addition to being the Chief Diplomat, he has the responsibility for appointing some members of the Judiciary, and he has the responsibility for signing or vetoing bills that CONGRESS presents to him. If a President like Ron Paul wants to push his reforms he's going to have to have someone in the Congress pushing it for him in addition to having enough votes to pass them. Vice versa, if he lacks support than his vetoes will be constantly overturned.
The Executive and Legislative are separate in the United States. They are elected separately for a reason, and they are elected to do different jobs which is why I say if Ron Paul supporters were serious they would be pushing for the election of legislative candidates that are sympathetic to their cause.
Civics Lesson over
So a President isnt a member of either house in your system, does he sit in either house?
And when you vote you have 3 ballots, presidential, and the 2 houses of congress ?
And then congressmen (not the president) put forward ideas to the HoR which then get voted on and if passed go to the Senate? What happens if the senate turn it down, does it go back to HoR for ratification ?
How do you sort out differences in the houses?
Is there a Double Dissolution?
Or does the Senate have final say, and sends bills to the rubbish heap?
The President is not a member of either house nor does he sit in either of them because the Legislative is completely independent of the Executive and the President has other roles that do not involve him sitting in on legislation (he's not a Prime Minister, the closest thing to that would the Speaker of the House), though the Vice President also serves as the President of the Senate but that's only to be a tie-breaking vote (it's mostly a ceremonial title). There's only one election day and ballot with the President being elected every 4 years, the House of Representatives being elected every 2 years, and 1/3 of the Senate being elected every 6 years.
Representatives (HoR) and Senators (Senate) can both introduce legislation which is drafted, debated, and voted on in Committee (depending on what the legislation covers). Only after passing Committee does the legislation get voted on by the HoR or the Senate. Either house can introduce legislation but it requires both houses approving it, if either of them says NO it goes back to the drawing board.
This is fairly different from a parliamentary style government in which one house often has the power to introduce legislation but another house has oversight and is able to shoot it down (essentially fulfilling the role that the President does in the U.S.). The U.S. Congress is coequal though.
Even though all appropriations bills must originate in the HoR there is no Double Dissolution like in Australia. That's why you'll never hear in the news anything about "dissolving the government" in the United States like you do in parliamentary nations.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
The founders or the U.S.A. intended that there be conflicts between the different branches of the government. Compromise is the end result but not necessarily their intention.
Hmmm, 15% of Iowa precincts reporting in, and Paul still sitting at 11%. Not a terribly auspicious start. Hell, Fred Thompson has him beat at this point.
Is the magical internet Ron Paul zealot brigade just waiting for the last moment to spring their cunning trap?
Edit: 25%, and still sitting at 11%. Things are getting grimmer.