Is Bernie Sanders's message more popular than Ron Paul's?

Quite a bit of your income taxes go to them too.

No they don't other wise our infrastructures would not be falling down. Make no mistake our taxes are paying for wars, black budgets, and surveillance death and destruction of freedoms. Get a clue
 
I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

You get war and Israel too.
 
No they don't other wise our infrastructures would not be falling down. Make no mistake our taxes are paying for wars, black budgets, and surveillance death and destruction of freedoms. Get a clue

She's right, you know.

Federal spending on roads and infrastructure is a tiny portion of all federal spending.

total-spending-2015.png
 
She's right, you know.

Federal spending on roads and infrastructure is a tiny portion of all federal spending.

total-spending-2015.png

Bernie wants to make that a lot bigger. The increased road spending will create jobs. And better roads. For free I think.

Win/win/win
 
Here's how Ron Paul tends to compare to some more well-known anarchists.



"I don't like the use of force, I like voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." --Ron Paul

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence." --Ron Paul

"Voluntary means no coercion. So, if you want to change people's habits, or change the world, you should do it by setting examples, and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So, voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go no matter what kind of problem you're looking at." --Ron Paul

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual." --Murray Rothbard

“Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.” --Murray Rothbard

“That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.” --Lysander Spooner

“This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." --Benjamin Tucker

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State." --Benjamin Tucker



"All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the State." --Ron Paul

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required for self-defense." --Ron Paul

“Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another.” --Murray Rothbard

"For everybody has a natural right to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded. The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on earth." --Lysander Spooner

“A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government.” --Lysander Spooner

"Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression, invasion, government, are interconvertible terms. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy." --Benjamin Tucker



"By the use of force, government comes with a gun, they take money from you, and build a highway that incidentally you can use because you don't have any other choices." --Ron Paul

"Who's the government? The government created nothing. The only thing they can do is steal, and rob people with a gun, and forcibly transfer wealth from one person to another." --Ron Paul

"The government, they have nothing. Everything they get and they want to give to someone else, they have to steal it from somebody. That's called taxation. The redistribution of wealth." --Ron Paul

“Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.” --Murray Rothbard

“And, indeed, what is the State anyway but organized banditry? What is taxation but theft on a gigantic, unchecked, scale?" --Murray Rothbard

“It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also include theft. Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay, his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist.” --Murray Rothbard

"Every activity of government, from courts to Congress, from sanitation workers to senators, from generals to attorney generals, from presidents to policemen, depends on stolen money." --Carl Watner

“If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.” --Lysander Spooner

"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat." --Lysander Spooner



"Governments, by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty--even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." --Ron Paul

“No man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire.” --Lysander Spooner

"How is it possible to sanction, under the law of equal liberty, the confiscation of a man's earnings to pay for protection which he has not sought and does not desire? And, if this is an outrage, what name shall we give to such confiscation when the victim is given, instead of bread, a stone, instead of protection, oppression? To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury. But that is exactly what the State is doing." --Benjamin Tucker



"The restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the Founders did not work." --Ron Paul

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable in achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written." --Ron Paul

"The last few centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, as with all other attempts, have failed. Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check." --Murray Rothbard

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” --Lysander Spooner

Whats Ron's position on roads though? Because THAT what separates minarchists from anarchists. Anarchists hate roads.
 
You've never heard the news say that there was no way that Bernie could ever win? If not, I can definitely grab you a few dozen clips for you to watch.

Yep. For nearly a year, the DNC, Shillary, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, and the mainstream media have been calling Bernie Sanders "unelectable". It's been a daily smear from the DNC and the MSM. Shane, some people here just haven't been paying attention to this because they were 100% laser-focused on Rand winning (who can blame them?), which can't happen now.

From The Hill: Democrats: Sanders unelectable
From Huffington Post: Why Bernie Sanders Is Unelectable
From New Republic: Bernie Sanders Will Be Unelectable If He Keeps This Up
From Salon: Paul Krugman has a sobering message for Bernie supporters
From Daily Kos: Why Bernie Sanders Is Unelectable

etc, etc.

I think my 'favorite' hit piece was the Chicago Tribune piece actually calling Sanders a "menace to the Democratic Party", just before the NH primary. The hit pieces were no different for Ron Paul. The only difference between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, in terms of electability, is that in 2012, the RNC folks at the Iowa caucuses cheated Ron Paul and his campaign by "losing" eight districts' worth of votes, making Ron Paul be "unelectable", by force. Meanwhile in 2016, the Clinton DNC people in Iowa cheated with rigged "coin tosses", but the actual results were so close even the MSM was forced to admit it was pretty much a tie. Then the landslide primary results for Sanders in New Hampshire sealed the deal. Few besides Clinton herself are calling Bernie "unelectable" now. In fact, it seems likely Sanders will win Nevada in just five days, according to the two most recent NV polls, and Sanders' upward trend. Breitbart is reporting that things look "ominous" for Clinton in Nevada.
 
I hate to admit it, but as much as I was hopeful in 2012 for a breakthrough for Ron based on the great campaign ads and grassroots support, it seems like Bernie Sanders's message is gaining more traction by democratic and independent voters. Is it because of the "FREE STUFF" message he's espousing?

Does the shit Pope in the woods?

Seriously, though - yes, mostly. It's also his talk-much-say-nothing approach. He is doing precisely what Trump does, only appealing to progressive ignorance, weakness, and corruption. He is doing a sufficient job of it... not that it take much to suck those pathologically unsound "intellects" into his campaign of snake oil and cockroach spooge.

Give what we witnessed in NH, I don't think Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing over Frankenstein-in-drag.

Why was it than Ron was considered "crazy" for his extreme views on role of government but socialist Bernie is being embraced like wildfire?

Please tell us this was a rhetorical question.

Lie if you must.

Put it another way: how many Ron Paul supporters do you think support Bernie Sanders today

I would tend to think few, if any. If your support was based on anything better than mere band-wagoneering, I would think the mental gymnastics needed to jump from Ron to that ignoramus nonpareil would be too much even in this nation gone looney-tunes.

how many people who were against Ron Paul/support Bernie Sanders?

Shit tons? Can't fix stupid.

Especially young voters

In my observations I have noted with ample dismay that the average "millennial" is intellectually and attitudinally deficient to a degree that defies all credulity.

I saw a disturbing newscast that interviewed students supporting Bernie Sanders, and one student said, "Bernie Sanders was not a successful candidate before because he didn't have a generation like us."

*Shudders*

Pretty typical, it appears.

This nation is lost and will not recover without some form of "reset event". That much I can say with degree of confidence than frightens me. And they are now well into voting age, the block size growing every year with damned near every last one a functional idiot. They cannot be reasoned with and will not be separated from the insanely stupid political notions to which they have welded themselves. You'd have better luck prying a fundamentalist Muslim from his beloved pet pig. These people cannot be stopped by polite means. Read into that what you may. Freedom is now in a battle for its very existence, make you no mistake about it. An ever growing proportion of Americans no longer merely tolerate authoritarian collectivist tyranny, but demand it.
 
Last edited:
Bernie could loosely be considered the "left's Ron Paul,"

I must vary with you here. He is the left's version of Trump, only far and away worse.

...only he is doing much better and actually has a good chance of getting elected.

Not sure I see this, given the NH result. The truly depressing aspect of this is that the Jackass party officials are not only making no effort to hide their perfidy, they seem to be heralding it from their minarets with unapologetic pride. The American people have uttered nary a peep in protest, much less anything of greater substance, thought it is possible that this apparent circumstance may be nothing other than the result of the media's sculpting of perceived reality.
 
Actually Ron Paul did great, but no news media outlet would cover his success.

On the money.

The only reason they are now covering Sanders, is because people are so damn pissed off with the media, and watching everything they do and say. It wasn't like that in 2007 and 2012. Ron Paul was a pioneer in exposing the corrupt news media, but too late for him. Sanders now has the benefit.

I doubt the media give a tinker's damn about what anyone thinks of them. The reason Sanders has coverage is because he is, in fact, an acceptable alternative to that pant-suited monster. I do believe Hillary stands the greatest chance of winning in November through rigging. If she falls for some as yet unforeseen reason, Bernie would be a far more palatable substitute than Trump. To my eyes, Theye are hedging, a valuable fringe-benefit being the appearance of diverse choice. Our lovable nitwit meaner needing but the flimsiest pretext upon which to grab hold in order to relieve himself of the burden of critical thought in favor blind belief.
 
Not sure I see this, given the NH result. The truly depressing aspect of this is that the Jackass party officials are not only making no effort to hide their perfidy, they seem to be heralding it from their minarets with unapologetic pride. The American people have uttered nary a peep in protest, much less anything of greater substance, thought it is possible that this apparent circumstance may be nothing other than the result of the media's sculpting of perceived reality.

What do you mean? Sanders won by 22.2%. It was a blow out. He got 15 delegates to Hillary's 9. The media keeps pushing this narrative that Hillary got 15 as well, but they're counting superdelegates which is absurd because they're not in any way pledged. Hillary had way more than Obama did at this point in the race in 08 but when it became apparent who would win, they all switched sides. Now, admittedly Hillary's lead in superdelegates is greater now than it was in 08, but the results will be the same if it becomes clear that Hillary can't mathematically win. The DNC isn't going to risk alienating an enormous amount of independent voters who have declared (myself included) that if she wins because of superdelegate trickery that they will switch sides to Trump.
 
Last edited:
There is almost nothing commendable to him except he is the least bad option.

Nah... every lowatt "intellect" I have met who supports Sanders seems to love Bernie-spooge, most eager gobble it up by the gallon. I suspect you are giving such people universes more credit for intellect and personal integrity than they deserve.

Very generous of you, but hardly realistic.
 
What do you mean? Sanders won by 22.2%. It was a blow out. He got 15 delegates to Hillary's 9. The media keeps pushing this narrative that Hillary got 15 as well, but they're counting superdelegates which is absurd because they're not in any way pledged. Hillary had way more than Obama did at this point in the race in 08 but when it became apparent who would win, they all switched sides. Now, admittedly Hillary's lead in superdelegates is greater now than it was in 08, but the results will be the same if it becomes clear that Hillary can't mathematically win. The DNC isn't going to risk alienating an enormous amount of independent voters who have declared that if she wins because of superdelegate trickery that they will switch sides to Trump.

I can only go by what is reported. Did Hillary NOT win?
 
That's it? You're not interested in getting huge amounts of private money (read: bribes) out of politics? Even right-wing folks should be able to get behind that.

What leads you to believe he is sincere and not merely saying what people want to hear?

That aside, what is Sanders going to do against a hostile Congress? Issue and EO?
 
She lost by a landslide. She won Iowa by 0.2%, if maybe that's what you're talking about.

Possibly so. Forgive me if I got my states confused. What I DO remember clearly is that Sanders purportedly won by a landslide, yet still lost. Assuming this is substantively correct, how else should one interpret it?
 
What leads you to believe he is sincere and not merely saying what people want to hear?

There's literally no answer that I can give that would satisfy you, but the fact is he is financing his campaign through small donations and is refusing the help or support of any superpacs. He has a long history of speaking out against cronyism, and I believe him to be an honorable man.

That aside, what is Sanders going to do against a hostile Congress? Issue and EO?

There's nothing he can do except use the presidential bully pulpit to shame Congress and attempt to rally the American people to vote out politicians that are bought and paid for. That's what the "political revolution" that he wants to ignite is all about. Plus, he would appoint only justices that declare that they will overturn Citizens United. That'd be a pretty great start.
 
Possibly so. Forgive me if I got my states confused. What I DO remember clearly is that Sanders purportedly won by a landslide, yet still lost. Assuming this is substantively correct, how else should one interpret it?

He didn't lose in any way, shape, or form. The vote was 60.4% for him and 38.0% for Hillary. He got 15 pledged delegates, she got 9 (NH is a proportional state). Again, in no way did he lose anything in New Hampshire: not by the vote nor the delegates.
 
Back
Top