What happens if Paul wins Iowa?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I mean it's such an absurd scenario on paper but really doesn't look too impossible now...

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Romney and Gingrich's support collapses after an embarrassment like that.

Huntsman surgest to victory in New Hampshire, Perry mounts a comeback and wins SC.

Chaos from there.

[CatoMinor]

Then we will go from people pretending he doesn't exist to "HE'S RACIST!!!!111!!11!!!!!11!!!"

You will see probably people on the news start bringing up those newsletters in the past and try and paint him as a racist and probably the Forum will be overran with threads about him by the people here who hate him. (Which would, I believe, prove my theory correct that the people who make fun of Paulites obsession over him here actually talk about him waaaay more than we do).

[Lief 🗽]

Whether or not he is a racist, he definitely supports racist policies, so that attack is not entirely invalid.

[Yelnoc]

Gingrich is done.  Either Romney or Huntsman wins New Hampshire.  Perry could pull out a win in South Carolina.  Regardless, the winner of SC or NH will win FL, rather than Paul.  Paul could win Nevada against The Mormon.  Maine, Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington Caucuses along with the non-binding Missouri primary are huge question marks.  Then you have the Arizona and Michigan Primaries, and then Super Tuesday.  It's really hard to say who wins the nomination in this scenario.

[Bull Moose Base]

I don't think it's bad for Romney actually.  I think Paul gets a surge in NH and non-libertarians probably rally to Romney, maybe at Newt's expense.  Newt would be in trouble then but would still have a fair chance to stage a comeback in South Carolina.  If he didn't at that point, he's probably in free fall.  I think the race becoming a Romney-Paul two-man is one of Romney's better scenarios, but it would probably kick up more chatter about a late entry.  If Newt made a comeback in South Carolina, we likely have a long slog ahead that may even end in a deadlock.

[RosettaStoned]

Whether or not he is a racist, he definitely supports racist policies, so that attack is not entirely invalid.

 And Obama doesn't?

[Lief 🗽]

Whether or not he is a racist, he definitely supports racist policies, so that attack is not entirely invalid.

 And Obama doesn't?

No sir.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Then we see who wins New Hampshire and South Carolina.

-If Paul wins New Hampshire, Romney's toast and its probably between Paul and whatever the social/neo cons are left not on his side (could be a chaotic map depending on who looks to be the new Anti-Paul)

-if Paul wins South Carolina, he probably picks up the social cons by default, loses Florida, and its a two person race between Paul and Romney.

If Paul doesn't win either, then it really depends on who wins NH and SC. It could be Romney v Paul with a strong Romney advantage (SC + FL would make Paul's western strongholds count for less), or it could be a chaotic mess between the southern candidate(s), Paul in the west, and Romney in the north and east.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Whether or not he is a racist, he definitely supports racist policies, so that attack is not entirely invalid.

What racist policies does he support? Or are you one of those people who believe states rights is automatically racist? And who cares what his racial views are? You can't look me in the eye and say Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid are not racist. All politicians are. But they are not stupid enough to enact openly racist policies. 

[tpfkaw]

You have to be in favor of bombing a few hundred thousand brown people to death in order to be non-racist.

[Oakvale]

And who cares what his racial views are? You can't look me in the eye and say Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid are not racist. All politicians are.

...what?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And who cares what his racial views are? You can't look me in the eye and say Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid are not racist. All politicians are.

...what?

Do you honestly think that the "good 'ole boys" are not racist? The Richard Shelby types?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You have to be in favor of bombing a few hundred thousand brown people to death in order to be non-racist.

That's just being a neocon. They want war so they can take away liberties.

[Oakvale]

And who cares what his racial views are? You can't look me in the eye and say Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid are not racist. All politicians are.

...what?

Do you honestly think that the "good 'ole boys" are not racist? The Richard Shelby types?

I don't think "all politicans" are racist, stunningly.

[© tweed]

Whether or not he is a racist, he definitely supports racist policies, so that attack is not entirely invalid.

 And Obama doesn't?

No sir.

the most overtly racist element of federal policy is the system of drug control and incarceration which Obama has done absolutely nothing to slow down.

[Boris]

I don't have any real stake in this issue, but would black people be "better off" (however you want to quantify that) with an end to the War on Drugs and a repeal of the Voting Rights Act, or the current status quo?

[© tweed]

I don't have any real stake in this issue, but would black people be "better off" (however you want to quantify that) with an end to the War on Drugs and a repeal of the Voting Rights Act, or the current status quo?

at this stage it is unlikely that the localized suffrage issues in the South would resurface should the statutory codification of voting rights be removed.  furthermore it is likely that even without the VRA courts would interpret the Reconstruction-era amendments as protecting effectively universal black suffrage (as they were of course initially intended, or were at least sold that way).  the War on Drugs has significant impact on levels of black educational and employment attainment, as well as of course the disenfranchisement of millions.  so I'd have to say this isn't that competitive a question, though interesting.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Blacks certainly would be better of without the Drug war, since the Drug war has led to dramatic increase of prisoners, and most prisoners are black.

Voting Rights Act? Congress would never let RP get away with repealing that.

[Boris]

So would it be pseudo-intellectual to state that racial minorities in America would be generally better off  under President Ron Paul than President Barack Obama (including rich Asians and Indians, who would receive a nice tax cut, no?). What factors have we not accounted for? Healthcare? Welfare? These things are IMO impossible to meaningfully assess since everyone is different and is encapsulated by different circumstances, but give it your best shot.

[© tweed]

ton of factors.  the War on Drugs is a very huge thing so it would take a lot on the other side to tip the balance when it comes to strictly executive use of power.  one thing I can think of is that Pres. Paul's Justice Department would probably go all absentee landlord on civil and labor rights litigation, which would not be good.  he probably would cease to work to enact the more important portions of PPACA.  if I thought some more I could come up with some more.


the other stuff that requires a measure of bargaining with Congress, I can't meaningfully evaluate.  it's easy for Paul to talk like he does when he's essentially powerless, how he'd react to having to sit down with Harry Reid and talk about Medicare, God only knows.

[Boris]

How does American drug policy even work? POTUS Paul wouldn't be able to change the legal status of drugs, no? Wouldn't he have to (with congress) repeal the Controlled Substances Act or whatever? Or can the DEA unilaterally decide what's illegal and to what extent? If the former is true, he'd merely be able to stop federal assets from enforcing the law - but what would stop state and local authorities from still f'ing peoples' lives up? I'd imagine most drug arrests are conducted by state and local authorities, not the DEA?

[© tweed]

again, there are a lot of factors.  in the 80s there was significant money from block grants pouring into local PDs for the purpose of drug enforcement: what the situation is with this now, I can't say with authority. even setting this aside, if Pres. Paul were to abandon all meaningful attempts to limit the entry of drugs into the US (or large-scale cultivation within) the state and local systems would be even more completely overwhelmed.  already in the past 10 years there's been a decrease in incarceration rates due to $$ concerns.

if Paul gave the green light to the states that there would be no federal interference with legal marijuana I would be surprised if many states did not adopt legalize, tax, and regulate measures to raise revenue.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Whether or not he is a racist, he definitely supports racist policies, so that attack is not entirely invalid.

 And Obama doesn't?

No sir.

the most overtly racist element of federal policy is the system of drug control and incarceration which Obama has done absolutely nothing to slow down.

Oh come on, Tweed, don't be so harsh on Barack. He can't do anything about these thing because he's busy with important national security matters that are keeping U.S. safe (like maintaining Gitmo).

[argentarius]

How does American drug policy even work? POTUS Paul wouldn't be able to change the legal status of drugs, no? Wouldn't he have to (with congress) repeal the Controlled Substances Act or whatever? Or can the DEA unilaterally decide what's illegal and to what extent? If the former is true, he'd merely be able to stop federal assets from enforcing the law - but what would stop state and local authorities from still f'ing peoples' lives up? I'd imagine most drug arrests are conducted by state and local authorities, not the DEA?

He could always give out millions of presidential pardons.