WI: Ron Paul elected President in 2008?
- Thread starter arnoldcabell
- Start date
No, he would anger so much of the entrenched power structure that it would actually be to his benefit
That is, the CIA/FBI/etc. Wetworks team collides with the Mossad Wetworks team, the Saudi Assassins, the Private Contractors backed by the MIC, and some associated malcontents, and they all kill each other in a firefight
Realistically, there is precisely no way that even the GOP is willing to just about any of his Policies, so he would, in practice accomplish very little (to say nothing of the Bureaucracy)
A pod when he ran for president in the libertarian party in 1988 would be better to keep it further away from current politics.
arnoldcabell
Banned
Had Ron Paul been elected as Senator for Texas in 1984 and Bush was for some reason unavailable to run in 1988, a GOP Paul-Buchanan ticket in 1988 would have been a sight to behold.
Do you really think the South would've reinstated Jim Crow laws if federal civil rights legislation was repealed by President Ron Paul? This isn't the Mid 20th Century, even if the legislation disappeared the cultural changes surrounding race would still be there, any Southern state that tried to bring back Jim Crow would be boycotted and lose its corporate investment.
arnoldcabell
Banned
Paul is opposed to the Interstate Commerce Clause in the 1965 VRA, not the voting rights passages per se.
Perhaps.
More subtly, it might ease the way for discrimination by private firms and a generally unsafe and hostile environment for Afro-Americans and other minorities.
picking judges on the supreme court for political reasons is a very hot topic in current politics.
There's no way a Paul/Buchanan ticket would've won though is the issue.
Buchanan already failed to win the nomination in '92 or '96 and Dole really wasn't that strong of a candidate.
Again, the GOP just.. aren't insane enough to nominate Paul or Buchanan and nominating them both? Likely you'd see a third party run from a more 'Establishment' candidate. Unsure on who, but the Democrats would win '88 in a landslide.
Paul being nominated in '08 honestly just means a larger win for Obama (or even Clinton, if she wins the primary) and potentially managing to flip a few more close states.
I think any business that openly discriminated on the basis of race would've faced mass boycotts, so I don't think many would've tried. They'd also lose a large customer base by excluding those of certain backgrounds, which would mean less income. Racial discrimination was a strong taboo by the 2000s, and it's only grown stronger since.
arnoldcabell
Banned
Similarly to how the reactionary Taft was initially presented as a progressive successor to Roosevelt's legacy, the same could have been plausibly done for Paul, if Reagan has rapid-onset dementia in 1987/1988 not quite severe enough for him to be removed from office but leaving him unable to dictate his own successor in the event that Bush was unavailable in 1988 for some reason.
The war on drugs is probably the bigger area at the time where racial discrimination had a very nasty effect.
Last edited:
The only limit on the evisceration of Majority-Minority VRA Districts following the repeal of Federal legislation would be the legislative incumbents unwilling to see their districts changed. Cultural Changes are one thing, political power is another matter entirely.
There is no chance of Ron Paul beating Phil Gramm in the Republican primary
Last edited:
arnoldcabell
Banned
Gramm being unavilable to run for some reason (death?) would greatly help Paul.
Paul's Supreme Court would be if anything even more willing to eviscerate the Majority-Minority VRA District Clause, which Paul views as being completely unconstitutional.