President Ron Paul in the 90's

pnyckqx

Banned
Very well, rubbish with a couple of weirdos in his link isn't important, how about his much more fleshed-out ties with the John Birchers, you know, the water fluoridation leads to communism people? That could be a surprisingly relevant issue, the JBS explicitly states that it wants the US out of the United Nations, the recent victory in the Gulf War can get spun as a victory of internationalism (which it easily was), Bush and Paul might not take that fight directly but others will on their behalf.
More guilt by association smears. Provide one primary source quote that has Rep. Paul speaking out against florination in water supplies.

Frankly, many conservatives of all stripes want the US out of the UN. That is hardly a 'radical' position.

Are you now suggesting that Ron Paul manipulates the John Birch Society?

Those 'weirdos' in the link go towards the credibility of the article, and condemns it by the same standard you've applied to Ron Paul. Nice try.

Also, we still have an elephant in the room, Paul's policies are at best 50 years behind his time and at worst 100. He can only get support from fringe political elements, he's too extreme in his issues to get much support from the establishment (i.e. the people who give him the nomination) on either of the two major parties. His charisma and charm... with a stretch of the imagination and a boatload of luck might secure him a few caucuses in '92 since Bush is as of yet untested as a president anyway. Though Bush has him beat for experience, CIA director versus some doctor/kooky Congressman from Texas? The Paul campaign, if we think of it as a boat, has already sprung some major leaks. Also there's the whole issue of Paul's using steam power while Bush is using good old fashioned petrol.
Yes, fringe political elements and 36 year old potheads living in their parent's basement are providing all of that funding to the Ron Paul campaign.

One could argue that the so-called establishment is extreme and needs be run out of office.

Funny, i can recall candidate George W. Bush making some similar statements as Ron Paul concerning US Forces being deployed during the 2000 campaign.

If you want to call names fine with me. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you should at least source your claims, and i don't mean by the ravings of the discredited terminated Paul campaign staffer, Eric Dondero.
 
More guilt by association smears. Provide one primary source quote that has Rep. Paul speaking out against florination in water supplies.

Frankly, many conservatives of all stripes want the US out of the UN. That is hardly a 'radical' position.

Are you now suggesting that Ron Paul manipulates the John Birch Society?


Actually having the US actually withdraw versus have the US remain aloof from the UN's doctrines or reforming it is a huge difference, and no, absolute withdrawal from the UN is a very radical position to take in regards to the number of elected officials who support it.

Also, even though if we're speaking from the PoV of the 90s, Ron Paul was the keynote speaker at a meeting of the John Birch Society, so it's hardly the classical political case of getting a picture of Paul with a JBS member and claiming that he has "ties to the organization" when in fact, his being said keynote speaker indicates that indeed, he does.

Those 'weirdos' in the link go towards the credibility of the article, and condemns it by the same standard you've applied to Ron Paul. Nice try.

Yes, fringe political elements and 36 year old potheads living in their parent's basement are providing all of that funding to the Ron Paul campaign.

Nice to get funding for something like a Congressional campaign for a seat in an obscure Texas district, even nicer to get funding for something like a presidential campaign, it's not like there's a world of difference between the two or anything. It's also cool if you can get something that isn't 5% of the primaries like he got in 2008, sure those were different times, but what in the 90s was so significantly different in Paul's favor that he could've attracted enough voters who really seriously wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to archaic, discredited ideas of a fixed currency?
 
Last edited:
If you butterfly away World War II -- or at least, American involvement in WWII -- and the Cold War, thus keeping American conservatism somewhat closer to his views, it's possible. However, that may butterfly his entry into politics, entirely.

Even then he couldn't win, because of his physical appearance and voice. The American electorate(especially swing voters) is shallow, and he does not look or sound presidential.
 
Simple. Have the US get into a disaster in the former Yugoslavia anda worse disaster in Somalia-then have Hussein Kamil's remarks brought up after Desert Fox. With Democrats discredited, and Ron Paul being the only noninterventionist Republican in the race, he wins in 2000. Within 100 days, the US begins withdrawing from Europe and the Mideast. September 11, 2001 is a bright, sunny day, in which not much happens besides the NYC mayoral race.
Now, the economy is likely to go in an unknown direction with a gold standard being issued and expenditures being drastically cut... Which could wind up causing more conflicts.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
More guilt by association smears. Provide one primary source quote that has Rep. Paul speaking out against florination in water supplies.

Frankly, many conservatives of all stripes want the US out of the UN. That is hardly a 'radical' position.

Are you now suggesting that Ron Paul manipulates the John Birch Society?


Actually having the US actually withdraw versus have the US remain aloof from the UN's doctrines or reforming it is a huge difference, and no, absolute withdrawal from the UN is a very radical position to take in regards to the number of elected officials who support it.
As i suspected, you couldn't come up with a primary source quote on the issue of florination of water supplies.

Support for the UN has been waning for years. The position is hardly radical and has always been an issue. The WWII generation remembered the League of Nations. The Taft wing of the Republican party was opposed to membership, and that opposition has not gone away, ever. It was the very same wing that supported Goldwater, and eventually Reagan.

That elected officials do not have the courage to reflect the views of their constituents is hardly unique to any political party or movement and is really not relevant. One cannot make the jump from the refusal of elected officials to take up an issue that appears to be controversial to claiming that the issue has no support amongst the public.

Also, even though if we're speaking from the PoV of the 90s, Ron Paul was the keynote speaker at a meeting of the John Birch Society, so it's hardly the classical political case of getting a picture of Paul with a JBS member and claiming that he has "ties to the organization" when in fact, his being said keynote speaker indicates that indeed, he does.
Many people support some views of the JBS without caring for or being a member of the organization. Ron Paul is not unique in that. To the best of my available knowledge, Paul is not a member of the JBS.





Nice to get funding for something like a Congressional campaign for a seat in an obscure Texas district, even nicer to get funding for something like a presidential campaign, it's not like there's a world of difference between the two or anything. It's also cool if you can get something that isn't 5% of the primaries like he got in 2008, sure those were different times, but what in the 90s was so significantly different in Paul's favor that he could've attracted enough voters who really seriously wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to archaic, discredited ideas of a fixed currency?
i was referencing the Presidential Campaign. Financially, the Paul campaign did quite well, as other candidates in both parties noted. The unique thing is that unlike the other candidates, the funding came primarily from individuals, not organizations.

Paul had no problem in his district, and several times, the Democratic Party hasn't even bothered running anyone against him.

Obscure Texas District? Hello, the 14th District includes the city of Galveston and parts of the greater Houston area.

Now if you check my first response, i believe that you'll find that i don't think Paul had any chance in the 92 election, so we're talking past each other.

i haven't had time to think about 96, but if i had to make a snap guess, i'd say that no, Paul doesn't have a chance. The present fragmentation of the American political landscape had only just begun in the mid 90's and was not near mature enough for a candidate such as Ron Paul to make an impact on the political scene. It would take something catastrophic for Paul to succeed.

To go off topic momentarily, i personally think that Ron Paul should retire. He's a shell of the Ron Paul who was the Libertarian Party candidate in 88. Age gets everybody.

If the movement that Paul is an intregal part of cannot survive without him, then it probably shouldn't survive IMO.

Incidentally, in the interest of full disclosure, i voted for Ron Paul in 1988, and would have voted for him again if he had gotten the Republican nomination. That said, i don't agree with all of his views. Paul supporters are hardly a monolithic group.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Simple. Have the US get into a disaster in the former Yugoslavia anda worse disaster in Somalia-then have Hussein Kamil's remarks brought up after Desert Fox. With Democrats discredited, and Ron Paul being the only noninterventionist Republican in the race, he wins in 2000. Within 100 days, the US begins withdrawing from Europe and the Mideast. September 11, 2001 is a bright, sunny day, in which not much happens besides the NYC mayoral race.
Now, the economy is likely to go in an unknown direction with a gold standard being issued and expenditures being drastically cut... Which could wind up causing more conflicts.
Not likely.

Somalia was a disaster. Clinton managed it. As for Wesley Clark's actions during the Kosovo situation, i suspect that cooler heads in Russia and NATO would have stopped WWIII from happening had Clark's orders been followed by General Jackson. That's not to say that things wouldn't have been tense for a while, but both societies lived through the constant threat of nuclear annialation before and manged just fine. Everybody knows how that game ends, and only somebody insane is willing to see it through to it's end.

US Forces would have also been withdrawn from Korea and Japan as well.

For Paul to achieve his domestic/fiscal agenda, he'd have to have legislative cooperation. You'd have to postulate a situation where like minded people get elected to congressional and senate office. THAT would be very difficult.


 
Paul doesn't stand a chance in any TL to win the nomination, let alone the general election. He's at least 50 years behind the times, if not more. The worldview he has is definitely pre-WW II. No going back....
 
Paul is given a minor Cabinet post by Clinton in 1997 for helping to rally a Dem victory in Texas. Secretary of Commerce probably and a "Debt of Honor" style attack happens during the 1998 SOTU, as Paul was the designated survivor he ends up as President.

Defeated in 2000 for a full term.
 
Paul is given a minor Cabinet post by Clinton in 1997 for helping to rally a Dem victory in Texas. Secretary of Commerce probably and a "Debt of Honor" style attack happens during the 1998 SOTU, as Paul was the designated survivor he ends up as President.

Defeated in 2000 for a full term.

Paul would be lucky to score Secretary of the Interior, Commerce would be filled by someone who actually matters, it's too important for Paul.
 
For Ron Paul to win a presidential election, you need all of the following to be true:
1) Nobody really decent at the political game running from either party. Dukakis/Dole perhaps?
2) An economy that is seriously in the tank due to what can plausibly be said to prove Paul right on many of his economic positions. We've got that now but were nowhere near that point in the 90s. Perot was as close as the electorate was sorta willing to buy at that point
3) A massively unpopular & expensive war. Sortof have that now, but nowhere near that in the 90s. Gulf War I would have had to have been totally disasterous. Paul presently benefits strongly from his 'trade with all, alliance with none' stance, but that was a non-starter in the 90s politically.
4) Some serious luck and favorable tailwinds in the media as well.

Could he make a serious play in the 2012 or 2016 election? Yes, but the economy needs to be in considerably worse shape and the price of gasoline needs to be at least $5 a gallon in most places and that price has to be at least plausibly attributable in part to US meddling and destablizing oil exporting nations. He always needs point 1, because as others have pointed out, he doesn't convey an 'alpha male' presidential impression, which hurts a lot in elections, especially if you're a republican.
 
So again, we have to resort to a depression to even make Paul have a chance, also I think people will take an unremarkable candidate over one that's just plain out of date in his policies.
 
I don't think Paul has any serious belief that he can get elected president. Instead I think he runs these educational campaigns and attempts to spread his message within the Republican party. By this measure, I think his 2008 campaign can be considered a success. It helped get his son elected senator, and one of his other sons is considering running in Texas. Now maybe Rand Paul could become president(He seems more accepted by the Republicans) But I don't think Ron Paul will ever even come close.

Maybe if he had won the Texas senate primary against Gramm in...84? That might be ASB though, since the whole establishment supported Gramm and I think he only got around 20% of the vote in the primary. But maybe if Gramm somehow decides not to run, or it's a crowded field, Paul can get through and win the general.

Although even if he's elected senator, I can't really see a path that gets him to the whitehouse. His views will still be the same, and while it might keep him in a senate seat in Texas, it won't help him get further. I'd suspect him to be primaried at the next election. But interestingly, a senator Paul might replace Buchanan as the paleo conservative choice in the 90's. Maybe we get him as the reform nominee in 2000 instead.
 
Paul would be very lucky to get any cabinet office from any President. Presidents choose cabinet officers based on ability to get things done, loyalty to the President, and a similar political outlook-even if it's a token member of the other party-like Bill Cohen (SECDEF in Clinton's final term), or Bob Gates (SECDEF now, but also in GWB's last two years)-all in no particular order. Clinton appointing Paul to a cabinet job is highly unlikely. Sending him off as ambassador somewhere to get him out of D.C.-and his hair, though...that's more likely.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I don't think Paul has any serious belief that he can get elected president. Instead I think he runs these educational campaigns and attempts to spread his message within the Republican party. By this measure, I think his 2008 campaign can be considered a success. It helped get his son elected senator, and one of his other sons is considering running in Texas. Now maybe Rand Paul could become president(He seems more accepted by the Republicans) But I don't think Ron Paul will ever even come close.
Exactly. i'm surprised that no one else has figured that out yet. He also knows that he's not pretty or articulate enough to win the Presidency. All these claims of "50 years out of date" are people whistling past the graveyard or refusing to see the elephant in the room even as they attempt to step around it.

Paul's campaigns have always been more about getting out his message rather than getting elected. The Libertarian party Presidential candidate has always been in that position. It's just a beauty contest to the party realists.

Maybe if he had won the Texas senate primary against Gramm in...84? That might be ASB though, since the whole establishment supported Gramm and I think he only got around 20% of the vote in the primary. But maybe if Gramm somehow decides not to run, or it's a crowded field, Paul can get through and win the general.
The same circumstances that would keep him away from the Presidential nomination are active. No way he can beat Gramm.

Although even if he's elected senator, I can't really see a path that gets him to the whitehouse. His views will still be the same, and while it might keep him in a senate seat in Texas, it won't help him get further. I'd suspect him to be primaried at the next election. But interestingly, a senator Paul might replace Buchanan as the paleo conservative choice in the 90's. Maybe we get him as the reform nominee in 2000 instead.
Ross Perot would dissolve the party before he tolerated a Ron Paul. Ross Perot was the Donald Trump of the 90's. His agenda was a hatred of George H. W. Bush. It must have burned a hole in his stomach to endorse George W. Bush in 2000 rather than Buchanan.
 
Only in the most dystopic of timelines could Ron Paul have possibly been elected to the presidency or vice presidency, regardless of year.
 
Only in the most dystopic of timelines could Ron Paul have possibly been elected to the presidency or vice presidency, regardless of year.
I differ. Ron Paul's presidency would be disastrous, but he's still preferable to many others who have been in the White House, such as the recent President from Connecticut (residing in Texas) with his Texan (claiming to live in Colorado) VP. I'm sure thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraquis would agree.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Paul would be very lucky to get any cabinet office from any President. Presidents choose cabinet officers based on ability to get things done, loyalty to the President, and a similar political outlook-even if it's a token member of the other party-like Bill Cohen (SECDEF in Clinton's final term), or Bob Gates (SECDEF now, but also in GWB's last two years)-all in no particular order. Clinton appointing Paul to a cabinet job is highly unlikely. Sending him off as ambassador somewhere to get him out of D.C.-and his hair, though...that's more likely.
Paul would never accept such a position. His primary focus is domestic and fiscal, not international.

His non-intervention foreign policy orientation would make him at best, an ineffective ambassador.

He's also not stupid. He won't allow anyone to shuffle him off to some meaningless post to get him out of the way.

Besides, OTL, he had just been returned to congress from the Texas 14th district in 1996.
 
Paul would never accept such a position. His primary focus is domestic and fiscal, not international.

His non-intervention foreign policy orientation would make him at best, an ineffective ambassador.

He's also not stupid. He won't allow anyone to shuffle him off to some meaningless post to get him out of the way.

Besides, OTL, he had just been returned to congress from the Texas 14th district in 1996.

I can't imagine he'd be more helpful than he is now with the House Monetary Committee...
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I can't imagine he'd be more helpful than he is now with the House Monetary Committee...
Sorry, i have to ask, was that complimentary or sarcastic? Honestly, i could take it either way, and really don't know quite how to respond or if i even should.

All indications are that Paul has done a good job with that committee. Of course if you're the Chairman of the FED, you probably don't think so.:D

In fairness though, i think that the SCOTUS had a little more to do with exposing the FED's present shenanigans than Ron Paul. They're the ones who ruled that the FED had to disclose it's loans of stimulus $$ to foreign banks.

Of course, a contempt of congress citation can ruin a money manager's day, and Paul could have played hard ball on that easily. i've seen the man pissed off before. He doesn't really display much --too disciplined for that, but he can be ruthless in a way that would have made Ayn Rand cringe.
 
Top