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

[mczerone]

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.

Your mistake is thinking that any of the existing spending will be reformed, redirected, or fixed in any way. There are bureaucrats' jobs behind those failed programs!

 

[mczerone]

You realize that it's not just low income "moochers", as you call them, that supports him, right? There are tons of middle class voters (including myself) that supports him. His proposals would benefit people at my income level as well.

Initially, maybe. But everyone except the politically connected will be in the ever growing "low income" class after not too long.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

And therein lies the problem with the liberty "movement".

I came on this forum years ago as a leftist to learn what I could about this guy, Ron Paul, who was talking about the Federal Reserve and wanted to end the wars. The more I learned the more zealous I became. Ron was the total package. I tainted myself by getting involved with the GOP to get Republicans to support Ron. I threw a frickin tea party to spread the word about Ron and educate people about the Federal Reserve, co-operative banking, the 10th Amendment... I personally converted more people than I can count. ON ISSUES. WITH PEOPLE. WHO VOTED.

I don't even care if you vote. More will change based on SCOTUS than with whoever is elected. However, I do believe that by turning their noses away from "socialists" and "leftists" the "liberty movement" is wasting an opportunity to share the non-aggression principle with the voters most likely to embrace it.

Exactly this. There were many things that attracted me to Ron Paul, and none of them had to do with his economics which seems to be what most people on here care about. That's fine, of course. We all care about different things. I care about economics as well, but I don't subscribe to the Austrian economics theory. I think there are a lot of good tenants in it, of course, like allowing the natural cycles of booms and busts instead of propping up a particular market, but I believe that spending is a very important part of our economy as well.

There isn't a single lever on the economy. You have to find the right balance between Keynesian and Austrian, and that balance can shift back and forth. Believing that "well, if we just did these one or two things everything would be amazing" is a pretty naive way to look at something as complex as the economy.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I supported Ron Paul with all my heart and soul. It's disappointing to see people on this board trying to break up the coalition of different people and ideas that he was able to stitch together just because they disagree with other people's worldviews.

 

[mczerone]

Exactly this. There were many things that attracted me to Ron Paul, and none of them had to do with his economics which seems to be what most people on here care about. That's fine, of course. We all care about different things. I care about economics as well, but I don't subscribe to the Austrian economics theory. I think there are a lot of good tenants in it, of course, like allowing the natural cycles of booms and busts instead of propping up a particular market, but I believe that spending is a very important part of our economy as well.

There isn't a single lever on the economy. You have to find the right balance between Keynesian and Austrian, and that balance can shift back and forth. Believing that "well, if we just did these one or two things everything would be amazing" is a pretty naive way to look at something as complex as the economy.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I supported Ron Paul with all my heart and soul. It's disappointing to see people on this board trying to break up the coalition of different people and ideas that he was able to stitch together just because they disagree with other people's worldviews.

And it's disappointing to see people on this board who don't understand how their worldviews are just a slightly different flavor of those that got us into the mess that Ron Paul was a reaction against.

 

[Cabal]

However, I do believe that by turning their noses away from "socialists" and "leftists" the "liberty movement" is wasting an opportunity to share the non-aggression principle with the voters most likely to embrace it.

Nonsense. I've never known anyone who truly promotes NAP to be shy about sharing it with anyone who is willing to listen. Many people within this so-called "liberty movement," at least where RPF is concerned, don't give a fuck about NAP, and may even openly oppose it outright, including the state socialists you're defending who fundamentally reject it.

 

[idiom]

The NAP is far from core to wanting to rationalise government and promote freedom.

The NAP is core to going home and not voting.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Exactly this. There were many things that attracted me to Ron Paul, and none of them had to do with his economics which seems to be what most people on here care about. That's fine, of course. We all care about different things. I care about economics as well, but I don't subscribe to the Austrian economics theory. I think there are a lot of good tenants in it, of course, like allowing the natural cycles of booms and busts instead of propping up a particular market, but I believe that spending is a very important part of our economy as well.

There isn't a single lever on the economy. You have to find the right balance between Keynesian and Austrian, and that balance can shift back and forth. Believing that "well, if we just did these one or two things everything would be amazing" is a pretty naive way to look at something as complex as the economy.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I supported Ron Paul with all my heart and soul. It's disappointing to see people on this board trying to break up the coalition of different people and ideas that he was able to stitch together just because they disagree with other people's worldviews.

I'm sorry Shane, but I am genuinely having a hard time believe you supported Ron Paul so vehemently after repeatedly denigrating his economic policy. If he were campaigning today, I would imagine you would be calling him a kook "born two hundred years too late to have [his] social darwinian utopia" as you put it. When he was running, didn't you fear him cutting social welfare programs if elected? Driving us into the past with his economic policy? Again I'm not trying to sound like a jackass I am really curious.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

And therein lies the problem with the liberty "movement".

I came on this forum years ago as a leftist to learn what I could about this guy, Ron Paul, who was talking about the Federal Reserve and wanted to end the wars. The more I learned the more zealous I became. Ron was the total package. I tainted myself by getting involved with the GOP to get Republicans to support Ron. I threw a frickin tea party to spread the word about Ron and educate people about the Federal Reserve, co-operative banking, the 10th Amendment... I personally converted more people than I can count. ON ISSUES. WITH PEOPLE. WHO VOTED.

I don't even care if you vote. More will change based on SCOTUS than with whoever is elected. However, I do believe that by turning their noses away from "socialists" and "leftists" the "liberty movement" is wasting an opportunity to share the non-aggression principle with the voters most likely to embrace it.

Yes, and vice-versa with "Leftists" and "Socialists" turning their noses away from liberty principled solutions (i.e. not solely looking to government as a panacea to solve all societal woes).

 

[idiom]

I'm sorry Shane, but I am genuinely having a hard time believe you supported Ron Paul so vehemently after repeatedly denigrating his economic policy. If he were campaigning today, I would imagine you would be calling him a kook "born two hundred years too late to have [his] social darwinian utopia" as you put it. When he was running, didn't you fear him cutting social welfare programs if elected? Driving us into the past with his economic policy? Again I'm not trying to sound like a jackass I am really curious.

RP specifically ran on saving welfare by cutting everything else.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm sorry Shane, but I am genuinely having a hard time believe you supported Ron Paul so vehemently after repeatedly denigrating his economic policy. If he were campaigning today, I would imagine you would be calling him a kook "born two hundred years too late to have [his] social darwinian utopia" as you put it. When he was running, didn't you fear him cutting social welfare programs if elected? Driving us into the past with his economic policy? Again I'm not trying to sound like a jackass I am really curious.

No. His economic proposals are wildly unpopular in this country so I knew Congress wouldn't enact them.