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

lol, i like ron paul, but trying to convince me there's no difference between the democrats and republicans right now is extremely silly.
 
Anti-interventionism is one of Ron Paul's most heralded platforms...he voted for the war in Afghanistan.

And not just voted against the Iraq war, but railed against it for years when virtually everyone else supported it (including Hillary). Don't forget those meager facts or the fact that he's spend his entire career warning against insane debt-spending, loss of privacy, and war in general among other things. The man is a hero and a moral and consistent one at that. If you put anyone else under the same microscope the contrast is appalling. Most underrated statesman of our time.
 
The man is a hero and a moral and consistent one at that. If you put anyone else under the same microscope the contrast is appalling. Most underrated statesman of our time.
Garbage. Dude brought home the fucking bacon for his district. The apologetics people go to justify that is pathetic.
 
And not just voted against the Iraq war, but railed against it for years when virtually everyone else supported it (including Hillary). Don't forget those meager facts or the fact that he's spend his entire career warning against insane debt-spending, loss of privacy, and war in general among other things. The man is a hero and a moral and consistent one at that. If you put anyone else under the same microscope the contrast is appalling. Most underrated statesman of our time.
Isn't that going a little far in praising a guy who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and would like to impose his stupid religious views on education and women's rights? I get praising him for a specific brave stance, but he's not the anything-statesman of our time.
 
Ron Paul, not surprisingly, doesn't understand simple concepts. There is indeed a similar aspect to Sanders and Trump but it isn't authoritarianism like Paul states. Instead the similarity is populism. Sanders plays to many classic left-wing populist sentiments while Trump plays to many classic right-win populist sentiments. There are many similarities between the two types of populism but very profound differences as well (most notably the nativist-racist components of right-wing populism).

Paul is correct that Trump tends toward authoritarianism but you have to not know what that word means to apply it to Sanders. As is often the case, Paul doesn't understand the meanings of words he uses.
 
Garbage. Dude brought home the fucking bacon for his district. The apologetics people go to justify that is pathetic.

This is one of the dumbest claims against him. He voted no on the bill that had the pork and it still passed. He stated multiple times that his intention was to get back some of the money that was taken from his constituency. How many congressmen/women can you name that return a portion of their govt salary to the treasury and never took a bribe or junket? Rhetorical question.
 
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.

What are your views on guns? Do you believe the only way to prevent abuse is to limit/ban them too?

Seems that the actual issues (what the candidates want to actually do in office) are much more important than complaining that candidates are going to use government power... especially coming from a candidate who was running for president and would absolutely use the full power of the president for his agenda if he was elected.
 
This is one of the dumbest claims against him. He voted no on the bill that had the pork and it still passed. He stated multiple times that his intention was to get back some of the money that was taken from his constituency.
I know how the apologetics argument works, I've seen it from Paul acolytes many times. At the end of the day Paul worked to get pork for his district while railing against pork. That is hypocritical.

How many congressmen/women can you name that return a portion of their govt salary to the treasury and never took a bribe or junket? Rhetorical question.
How many other congresspersons never took a junket? Hopefully none. That does help explain how poorly educated he was on so many topics though.
 
What are your views on guns? Do you believe the only way to prevent abuse is to limit/ban them too?

Seems that the actual issues (what the candidates want to actually do in office) are much more important than complaining that candidates are going to use government power... especially coming from a candidate who was running for president and would absolutely use the full power of the president for his agenda if he was elected.

Individuals having power in a decentralized model has problems as well, but the idea is that decentralization is a counter to consolidated power which leads to the loss of rights and has a natural tendency to slide to authoritarianism.

So individuals having the freedom to own guns aligns with that model.

I'm just speaking to the philosophy, not specific agenda items or individual people. The philosophy applies to private entities as well, so corporate monopolies are to be avoided in the same way as state power monopolies.
 
An authoritarian who opposes the death penalty.

At least Trump supports the govt negotiating drug prices, and Social Security. I can't think of any pro-middle class policies Paul supports.
 
Bernie's authoritarian because he wants to ramp up taxes on Wall Street and other big companies.

But the plain facts are that he won't. Now, he may cause more companies to relocate out of the USA, but know that to hand out all these freebies he is going to tax the regular working people out there working hard and making a living.

Bernie is a thief, a very rich thief.
 
Individuals having power in a decentralized model has problems as well, but the idea is that decentralization is a counter to consolidated power which leads to the loss of rights and has a natural tendency to slide to authoritarianism.

So individuals having the freedom to own guns aligns with that model.

I'm just speaking to the philosophy, not specific agenda items or individual people. The philosophy applies to private entities as well, so corporate monopolies are to be avoided in the same way as state power monopolies.

I don't want to get into a whole discussion on this, since we've already gone off topic. But this logic seems inconsistent to me. Your first statement was that "a powerful tool will be inevitably abused", but now you you make exceptions to that rule for powerful tools like guns... So that rule itself doesn't really hold any water in the first place.

Like I kind of implied to the first guy.... this sort of thinking (blaming the tool rather than looking at what its used for) is very narrow, and detracts from the actual issues. Perhaps some people prefer to choose this lazy form of thinking so they don't have to think about the actual issues.
 
Perhaps some people prefer to choose this lazy form of thinking so they don't have to think about the actual issues.
i8SpBem.gif
 
I don't want to get into a whole discussion on this, since we've already gone off topic. But this logic seems inconsistent to me. Your first statement was that "a powerful tool will be inevitably abused", but now you you make exceptions to that rule for powerful tools like guns... So that rule itself doesn't really hold any water in the first place.

Like I kind of implied to the first guy.... this sort of thinking (blaming the tool rather than looking at what its used for) is very narrow, and detracts from the actual issues. Perhaps some people prefer to choose this lazy form of thinking so they don't have to think about the actual issues.

It's about power consolidation, not power itself. But sure, we don't need to go off topic.
 
Oh look, the guy that I basically quoted verbatim and just switched the subject is whining about substance. Fucking hypocrite.

I can call Ron Paul a moron when I can substantiate why his comparison makes no sense and was made in the face of great evidence to the contrary, which I and others have done.

You saying "I think you're a moron" basically amounts to "I'm too dumb to talk substantively about the issues, so I'm just going to call you stupid."

So, why am I foolish for laughing at this comparison? How are Trump and Sanders similar? And please fight the Trumpian impulse to say "you're in the face of great evidence to the contrary" or make some comment about me being ugly or sweating.
 
Both rely on fantastical promises to pander to the far members on their respective spectrum. On the authoritarian front, i do not see the connection; however, Bernie wants a lot more state control of the economy, which is terrifying.
 
I can call Ron Paul a moron when I can substantiate why his comparison makes no sense and was made in the face of great evidence to the contrary, which I and others have done.

You saying "I think you're a moron" basically amounts to "I'm too dumb to talk substantively about the issues, so I'm just going to call you stupid."

So, why am I foolish for laughing at this comparison? How are Trump and Sanders similar? And please fight the Trumpian impulse to say "you're in the face of great evidence to the contrary" or make some comment about me being ugly or sweating.
You called Ron Paul a "fucking moron." Trying to pass that off as a substantive critique of anything makes you look like a fucking moron.
 
Back
Top