Unless Paul completely quacks out and ignores the Constitution (like he does with foreign policy issues), he would have to be very competent as the President doesn't have dictatorial powers. He will have to show leadership abilities to get Congress, who writes these laws, to go along with it.
Obama’s not exactly a genius and had no previous record of accomplishment, yet he’s managed to implement his policies pretty well, even when half the country is opposed.
If you want a leader who works like Obama has, then by all means, vote Paul.
It takes an engineer to design a machine, but any moron with a wrench can take it apart if he has the will.
There is a difference between dismantling and destroying. For example, it actually takes a highly competent engineer to dismantle a building without destroying its foundation and the buildings around it. You don't just get some dumb redneck to stick some dynamite in the bottom and hope it goes boom correctly.
The presidency has plenty of power to gut government with or without Congress.
Not if you follow the Constitution.
We only need someone who actually wants to do it.
Go back to my Fed example. I actually don't believe Paul wants to do it. He has been all talk, but when he is given a role where he can actually do something about the Fed, he hasn't done anything. He has the most power now he will ever have in regards to the Fed and he has been a failure. Like most old career politicians, he has an issue he likes to talk about and raise money on, but actually doesn't fix it lest he no longer can continue to raise money off it or get attention from it.
His history has shown he is nothing more than words, words, words.
If you are hiring an employee, you don't look to someone who just says "I talked about XYZ or I believe in ABC", you want someone with a demonstrable track record of success. Anyone can talk, few can do.
The President doesn’t have to be a dictator, and he doesn’t have to shrink the entire government to make a huge difference.
He can simply refuse to appoint cabinet members to various positions and those departments will be nullified. He can choose which laws to enforce and to what level - if immigration laws can be ignored, so can others. How effective would Labor or EPA or Education be with no one at the top? Unless Democrats had majorities in both houses, there’s little chance they could do anything fast enough to make a difference.
PLus, our government is structured to keep any branch from power grabs, it’s not structured to prevent a branch from voluntarily giving up its powers. If a President Paul fires the whole department of Education, what’s Congress going to do about it? Seize control? They can barely manage themselves on a good day. It would be tied up for years before the SC got to it just like Obamacare.
If we had a solid two years with entire departments eliminated, I think enough people would see that we never needed them in the first place.