Ron Paul: "Bernie is just a variant of Trump"

speakhandsforme

speakhandsforme

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
7,386
Reaction score
0
If you ever needed a reminder that Ron Paul is a fucking moron, here is a fresh one:

“No, because he’s an authoritarian,” he said when asked if he’d back the independent Vermont senator.

“He’s just a variant of Trump,” the former Texas representative added. "Even the things I worked with on Bernie, some of the foreign policy, he’s a part of the military industrial complex.
“He was a big voter for militarism. He’s an authoritarian of a different color, but Trump’s a super authoritarian. Trump wants to be the boss.”

Paul also argued that Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton does not present voters with a better option than Trump, her Republican counterpart.

“My biggest beef is that from a libertarian viewpoint there’s no meaningful difference between Hillary and Trump,” said Paul, who sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012.

“I mean, they both support the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, deficits, entitlements, invasions of privacy,” he added.

“It is super-nationalistic populism versus socialism. That is so remote from what we need to be doing. We need to be moving ourselves away from tyranny towards liberty.”
Click to expand...


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...1285-ron-paul-sanders-just-a-variant-of-trump
 
HUNTERMANIA said:
More like the plain truth.
Click to expand...
Heeeey Buddy! Long time, no talk. Hope all is well... And you know I like Ron Paul, but it quite literally does not get more different than Trump and Sanders. Sanders is the antithesis of Trump, imo.
 
Bukowski82 said:
Heeeey Buddy! Long time, no talk. Hope all is well... And you know I like Ron Paul, but it quite literally does not get more different than Trump and Sanders. Sanders is the antithesis of Trump, imo.
Click to expand...

In a lot of ways, what you're saying is correct, but in terms of government power/expansion of government control, which is what RP is talking about, they're similar from a libertarian perspective.
 
HUNTERMANIA said:
More like the plain truth.
Click to expand...

Do you have a lick of evidence for Sanders being "authoritarian" or a slave to the military industrial complex?

It seems counter-intuitive since he, unlike most politicians, opposed both the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War since their inception.

Ron Paul, like always, is baseless in his claims. Seeing someone so deluded with libertarian rhetoric without the voting record to even represent his claims then accuse others of this shit is hilarious. Makes me wonder how the fuck anyone could have ever seriously supported him, unlike actual libertarian candidates like Gary Johnson.
 
speakhandsforme said:
Do you have a lick of evidence for Sanders being "authoritarian" or a slave to the military industrial complex?

It seems counter-intuitive since he, unlike most politicians, opposed both the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War since their inception.

Ron Paul, like always, is baseless in his claims. Seeing someone so deluded with libertarian rhetoric without the voting record to even represent his claims then accuse others of this shit is hilarious. Makes me wonder how the fuck anyone could have ever seriously supported him, unlike actual libertarian candidates like Gary Johnson.
Click to expand...

To Libertarians everyone who favors any intervention is a hawk.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-and-the-liberal-hawks

It looks like he supported Kosovo, Israel (not nearly as ardently as others) Bill Clinton's interventions in Iraq.

Most people wouldn't consider him a hawk except non-interventionists.
 
speakhandsforme said:
Do you have a lick of evidence for Sanders being "authoritarian" or a slave to the military industrial complex?

It seems counter-intuitive since he, unlike most politicians, opposed both the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War since their inception.

Ron Paul, like always, is baseless in his claims. Seeing someone so deluded with libertarian rhetoric without the voting record to even represent his claims then accuse others of this shit is hilarious. Makes me wonder how the fuck anyone could have ever seriously supported him, unlike actual libertarian candidates like Gary Johnson.
Click to expand...

Bernie's authoritarian because he wants to ramp up taxes on Wall Street and other big companies. He also wants to raise the minimum wage. He also wants to regulate wasteful industries.

Limiting big business's ability to stuff as much money as they humanly can in their pockets = authoritarianism.
 
Who cares about Bernie? It's over, it's going to be Hildawg vs Trump. Stop talking about this can.
 
Ron was especially upset by Trump's quote about America not being a country where people who cannot afford medical care should be left to die in the streets.

Far too tyrannical and authoritarian a position for an enlightened libertarian.
 
PolishHeadlock said:
To Libertarians everyone who favors any intervention is a hawk.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-and-the-liberal-hawks

It looks like he supported Kosovo, Israel (not nearly as ardently as others) Bill Clinton's interventions in Iraq.

Most people wouldn't consider him a hawk except non-interventionists.
Click to expand...

I don't care for his support of Israel, that's for sure. But I really dislike pure isolationist foreign policy as well and, perhaps compared to others on the left, am fairly militaristic in theory but just abhor the nation's choices of intervention. In fact, Clinton's in Iraq, Bush's into Afghanistan, and Obama's into Syria may be the only three of the past 40 years (actually taken) that I do /did support. But I am in no way informed on Kosovo and cannot offer an informed opinion on it.
 
Anti-interventionism is one of Ron Paul's most heralded platforms...he voted for the war in Afghanistan.
 
BoxingFan123 said:
Anti-interventionism is one of Ron Paul's most heralded platforms...he voted for the war in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Yes but Paul has said the only justification for the use of force is a direct attack on America. He considered this a response to 9/11 .

Paul voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[323] considering that it was a response to the September 11 attacks. But over the years even though he initially supported the War in Afghanistan, Paul also advocates withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because he believes a decade of war in Afghanistan is enough.

Paul also stated:

There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture … This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods … Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.
Click to expand...
 
HUNTERMANIA said:
In a lot of ways, what you're saying is correct, but in terms of government power/expansion of government control, which is what RP is talking about, they're similar from a libertarian perspective.
Click to expand...

I think that's a problem with the Liberetarian perspective more than anything. Government is a tool which can be used a lot of different ways. To blame the tool itself, and say that candidates are the same because they intend to use that tool, detracts from what they actually intend to use that tool for.... which is what matters most.
 
Everything TS quoted RP saying is true. I see no evidence here making RP a moron.

RP knows more about foreign policy and economics than Trump and Sanders put together.
 
I wish I could like Ron Paul, but he's just a mess. Sanders has rational views on the military. And implying that he's an authoritarian is a little suspect, comparing him to Trump. Trump is an autocrat, while Bernie is not. Yes anybody can argue that something like FDR-style government is authoritarian, but the difference in execution and consent of the people is more than just wearing a different color.
 
MeatheadMike said:
I think that's a problem with the Liberetarian perspective more than anything. Government is a tool which can be used a lot of different ways. To blame the tool itself, and say that candidates are the same because they intend to use that tool, detracts from what they actually intend to use that tool for.... which is what matters most.
Click to expand...

There is a presupposition that a powerful tool will be inevitably abused, and I think that is correct. The only way to prevent abuse is to limit the power.

It's a different way of looking at it I suppose, but in that sense it doesn't matter what a person says when it comes to expanding state power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,505
Messages
56,651,181
Members
175,334
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top