Ron Paul for president

Firstly, I think my opponent for setting up this debate, not forfeiting, and responding in every round quickly. Now to the issues:Pro simply is neglecting to acknowledge how our government works. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, so unless Mr. Paul has a time machine, he cannot go back in time and veto it. Only Congress could repeal "Obamacare", the president would be violating the constitution if he repealed a congressional act. And Roe v. Wade? That is a supreme court case. The president cannot overrule a court case. Pro has consistently proposed things Paul would "do" as president, but has not been able to explain the actual process in which this would happen. The president is essentially powerless. Pro's blind hope reminds me much of Obama supporters in 2008...With regards to the polls, Pro is simply wrong. "All polls are polls" is an inaccurate and untrue statement. The Gallup poll scientifically polls random participants so they accurately reflect the electorate. Straw Polls are only based on a group that has already showed up at an event. Moreover, they are bribed with beer and hot dogs, which is not exactly scientific data of who is going to vote. Only 16,000 people voted in the Ames Straw Poll. And only 4,000 for Paul. If pro seriously thinks that people attending a $30 dollar even in Ames, Iowa who must be registered Republicans is representative of the country, well, I rest my case. Yes, I agree with the rationale behind Paul's foreign policy, but in practice it would be impossible to enact without a Congress full of like minded representatives and senator... aka, not happening. To address Pro's last argument on how my arguments are, I will say this: us Americans life under a government and Constitution of checks and balances, and separated powers. This debate is about whether or not Ron Paul would be a good president. It is not about if Ron Paul has good ideas, it is about if he would be a good (aka effective) president. Since Pro has started this silliness, I will settle it. The difference between Pro and my arguments is that I take into account THE REALITIES of how government works, and Pro does not. So in reality, my arguments actually pertain to this topic better than Pro's. The gist of my argument is this: Ron Paul may have good ideas about politics, but the reality of the political process would not allow him to enact these policies. Pro, you must realize, the president is not supreme dictator. He cannot just do whatever he wants. Ron Paul cannot just decide to close foreign bases, end the FED, cut entitlements, and end the wars. He can only sign into law Congress's bills that do this. Since Congress would not pass these bills, Ron Paul would be useless. Modern American politics have misconstrued the purpose of the president. All of these debates and political shows mis-inform people like Pro into thinking that presidents decide the policies of the country. And since they don't (read the Constitution), other characteristics need to be considered when choosing a president, such as adaptability, charisma, negotiating skills, diplomatic nuance, and ability to compromise. Taking these traits into account, Ron Paul should not be president. He should stay in congress, making laws. As soon as Paul got into office, and realized that in order to pass any legislation, he would have to convince (and thus compromise) the 200 Democrats in Congress into agreeing with him, Paul would be screwed. People like Ron Paul because he is honest, straightforward, and committed to his beliefs. But ironically, this commitment would weaken his ability to lead effectively. It may be sad, but it is the truth of American politics. Thanks