What would a Rand Paul presidency look like?

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

If Rand Paul was elected president and say had the GOP in control of both houses of congress what would his domestic agenda look like? My guess is that he'd start off with some type of tax cut bill to unite the whole party behind him and maybe aggressively pursue the economic part of his agenda the first two years, then say if the Democrats took back the senate he might propose NSA reform or the abolition of the Patriot Act and work with a bipartisan coalition.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Awesome.

[ingemann]

[Mr. Smith]

Awful esome.

[Maxwell]

Probably not nearly the apocalypse people think it will be. Nor the paradise I hope for it to be.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Awesome.

[Lief 🗽]

[SPC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

I really appreciate the well thought out and nuanced responses in this thread.

[SPC]

I really appreciate the well thought out and nuanced responses in this thread.

Much as I would like to believe Rand Paul would implement libertarian utopia, the reality is that any action he desires will be blocked by Congressional leaders of both parties. His alliance with McConnell may prove useful in the Senate, but there are enough Democrats and big-government Republicans to prevent any substantive change. He might use the veto a lot, but he would almost certainly be blamed for shutting down the government if he cut spending significantly. Foreign policy he has a bit more leeway, but he will also be constrained by the fact that a Paul State or Defense Department will almost certainly have to be staffed with Bush holdovers (given that the pool of non-interventionist Republican foreign policy experts is rather thin).

Devolution might gain traction with an executive not only allowing states to opt out of various government programs, but actively encouraging it.

[Lief 🗽]

I really appreciate the well thought out and nuanced responses in this thread.

Rand Paul would never be elected president, so it's an impossible question to answer.

[Mr. Smith]

Alright alright, to his credit, we wouldn't be involved in so many freaking wars under him.

[AggregateDemand]

Overtones of neolibertarian platitudes and common sense. Undercurrent of the same old machine grinding the lower-middle class into pulp.

If he proposed cutting social security and medicare, the stand by Rand crowd, who love his cult of personality, would turn on him in a heartbeat. No one would take him seriously.

[courts]

[Murica!]

I really appreciate the well thought out and nuanced responses in this thread.

Much as I would like to believe Rand Paul would implement libertarian utopia,

Yes, I highly doubt he'll create an anarcho-socialist utopia.

[Lief 🗽]

I really appreciate the well thought out and nuanced responses in this thread.

Rand Paul would never be elected president, so it's an impossible question to answer.

New York Democrats are real experts, aren't they?

I don't want to speak for all of us, but yes.

[TNF]

The next Republican President will more likely than not enact a national right-to-work act, so that's pretty much a given.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

A nightmarish anarchist utopia.

[SWE]

A nightmarish anarchist utopia.

America having a president=Anarchy?

[Murica!]

A nightmarish anarchist utopia.

America having a president=Anarchy?

Not to mention nightmarish and utopia are in the same sentence.

[IceSpear]

The next Republican President will more likely than not enact a national right-to-work act, so that's pretty much a given.

But I thought both parties were the same.

[TNF]

The next Republican President will more likely than not enact a national right-to-work act, so that's pretty much a given.

But I thought both parties were the same.

They're the same in that neither would ever lift a finger to undo national right-to-work the minute it was enacted as law. The Democrats campaigned on repealing Taft-Hartley in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, and 1972. Still no movement on that.

[IceSpear]

The next Republican President will more likely than not enact a national right-to-work act, so that's pretty much a given.

But I thought both parties were the same.

They're the same in that neither would ever lift a finger to undo national right-to-work the minute it was enacted as law. The Democrats campaigned on repealing Taft-Hartley in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, and 1972. Still no movement on that.

I'm pretty sure that's still a fairly huge difference considering Democrats would never push it in the first place.

[All Along The Watchtower]

RIP America

[Rockefeller GOP]

What's his Congress like?  That's all that will matter.