Im still waiting for you to quote all these specific promises he made, then we can go from there.

How? This is not solely a presidential power. Most of this decision making rests with congress. Corporate interests assure that we will be staying in Iraq...we just built the largest military base/embassy on foreign soil anywhere in the world in Iraq. Do you really think we're going to abandon that? We have military troops stacked up in the kandahar valley, getting blown to bits every day (moreso than anywhere else at present, iirc) specifically to open up a trade route from afghanistan to pakistan for Haliburton to move supplies. Why would we abandon these two projects, nevermind the hundreds of similar undertakings that are also going on? We have a vested interest in continuing these wars and plundering these resources.



This power does not lie with the president either, but also with congress. Ray, i respect your right to an opinion, but your posts reflect an absolute lack of knowledge of American civics. Many Americans also lack this understanding, so it's not overly surprising that you are unaware of the mechanisms by which change happens in our country, but you need to understand that the things you are saying simply cannot happen as you present them.

Ray, as to your points about healthcare, are you aware that the USA could change the national deficit into a surplus solely by nationalizing healthcare? This is an economic fact and is easily found with a simple google search. The majority of Amnericans supported a public option for healthcare, as evidenced by numerous polls, but because the politicians are owned by corporate and financial interests (of which the insurance agencies make up a huge percentage) they ignored the will of the people to ensure the sanctity of the oligarchs.

Lastly, I have a final question for you. Do you know who pays Ron Paul's campaign bills? Do you know who supports him? You talk about him as though he is not supported by special interest groups, corporate interests or PACs...I would suggest you look into this because, afaik, there is no one currently serving in the American political system on the national level who does not get money from these people. The reason for this is that it is impossible to fund campaigns and win election without the significant contributions such organizations are able to make. So when you present Paul as a man of the people, devoid of special interest influence, I believe you are in error.

Again, I commend Ron Paul for supporting this bill and hope that we can achieve some real change in this arena. I'm going to be calling m,y representative again today to urge her to support this measure.

in subsequent posts after that I pointed out that he admits he can only do so much but that he will TRY to make these changes, He has said he will do whatever he can as president to implement the changes, he didn't promise anything and if I said he did somewhere in there I was mistaken.

Ron Paul wouldn't promise something he cant deliver, hes too honest.

The reason Ron Paul gets snubbed is, he'll actually change the status quo in many respects.

The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. This gives the President the power to order the troops home. We have spent trillions on these wars, trillions that could have been better spent at home. Even Ron Paul has explicitly stated he would prefer we spend that money on welfare than on murder and violence. To think we need to preserve stability and peace in the Middle East through our military might is neoconservatism. War is something Ron Paul can do something about without jumping through flaming hoops.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Actually...this is not entirely true. Not only does the president not have such powers but much of the power that the president does have in this realm is without constitutional basis (these powers are inferred as a result of precedents set by several presidents throughout history). According to historian Thomas Woods, "Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — which refers to the president as the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States' — has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress."

Here's what the constitution says, re: the president as commander in chief:



Bringing the troops back home is not only not solely a presidential responsibility (either officially or precedentially) but it clashes entirely with American Interests.

I am not convinced. If he does not have the power, who does? Usually the argument is whether the president has the power to wage war without congress support, and congress can certainly end the war if it is unpopular enough, but what is stopping the president from withdrawing troops? The president's power to initiate war is checked by congress (at least constitutionally), but his power to end it is not.

Also, while you focus on the technicality of whose power it is to withdraw the troops, you ignore completely the reality of whether or not such an option would even be entertained by the corporate/financial interests that dominate American politics (and society).

Here's the wikipedia article on the withdrawal from Iraq...just glance through it...you'll see what's what.