Liberty Commentary
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2015
- Messages
- 23
Ron Paul vs Bernie Sanders
- Thread starter Liberty Commentary
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bernie sanders ron paul
wstrucke
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 (check my post history!) and I support Bernie Sanders in 2016. I've been trying to get through this video for the past several days to try to understand the points where people contrast Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, but I'll be honest -- this is a very hard thing to watch. The editing is terrible and the selections are forced; as if the author is trying to demonstrate opposing views but often failing, in both the selected content and the direct comparisons. I could go through issue by issue, but in the end it doesn't matter. It should be obvious to anyone that Sanders is far left and Paul is far right in most ways. You don't need a video to demonstrate that, and if you think people are confused on that point then we probably disagree on why Paul and Sanders are drawing people in!
In short, healthcare, for example - the video shows Bernie advocating for a massive government single-payer healthcare system, then Ron Paul jumps in and talks about how everything is expensive because of government interference, with regulations, special tax breaks for some groups, and the massive insurance industry that resulted from that. Another way of looking at this, is that Sanders and Paul both agree that costs are outrageous, and the system we have right now is both causing and continually exacerbating the problem. I could honestly support either solution if it fixes the cost and access problem, and if I could flip a switch I would probably use Paul's method. The problem is that Paul had two tries to build support to do this with a Presidential run and had his message blocked by the political system both times. The RNC and media marginalizes him, like they do to so many others... Having been to northern europe a few times this year, and talking to people living there and experiencing first hand the vast differences in a successful democratic socialist country, I can see that while I will always prefer the libertarian, austrian economic, free market system -- simply forcing the corruption out of our government and going all the way the other way would also put us in an arguably better situation than we have now.
Do any of you think that the government backed system that not only supports, but puts the desires of the top 0.1% before everyone else is acceptable? We can argue that in a pure free market system the type of corruption, monopoly, and abuse would self-correct. But we don't live in that system. Ron Paul talks about that all the time. We need to deregulate, we need to change our perspective on money, and so on... so I'll put it another way -- we need to either go all the way left or all the way right. This is where we are. The middle is awful, and it screws us all over because we spend all of our political capital moving the line two inches left or two inches right of center in a field a mile wide. That's why the banks and the wealthy back both sides. It's a game and we're all the victims.
I think that maybe what people are missing here, when talking about these two politicians, is the issues they more or less agree on significantly outweigh those they disagree on. Ideologically they are obviously on opposite sides of the political spectrum on most issues (states rights, abortion, economics, you name it), but on what I consider to be the most important issues, I think they agree. Arguably the most important issue of our generation is in one way or another, campaign financing. It leads to corruption in government, media, and all of the various mega-industries that all result in the Federal government making decisions on behalf of their true constituents - the financial backers, instead of us, the people.
Another way of putting it, is that in a one dimensional system Sanders and Paul are on opposite sides, but in two dimensions (Left vs Right and Authoritarian vs Libertarian) they are both far more Libertarian than any other serious candidate, and I appreciate that.
I would LOVE to live in a world where we can have these ideological differences define our political debate. We should be talking about Keynesian versus Austrian economics, what money actually is, and how a free market should work. The problem is, as I found over the last two election cycles, is that there is such an incredible amount of corruption in the system that it is virtually impossible to even discuss these points in any semblance of a public manner, never-mind fighting for any substantive change. States rights vs Federal rights, the Income tax and abolishing the IRS, the role (or elimination) of the department of education. I think these are all important issues and I identify with the Libertarians on many of them. The thing is, at the end of the day, until we take back our political system none of it matters.
You can listen to the Republicans and the Democrats in power talk about this all day long, but I don't think it matters WHO we elect, because in the end they all do the same damned thing -- they reply to our outreach with templates, they ignore our needs, our rights, and time and time again they legislate based on the desires of their corporate masters. I'm sick and tired of these politicians spending countless hours going back and forth on issues they know we are all passionate about just to stir up the electorate. They exhaust us. They get enough people to ignore the details enough so they can perpetuate the system. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is some big conspiracy going on here with some dark group pulling all of the strings in the background -- it's simply a matter of people in the same situation (the wealthy and powerful in this case) coming to the same conclusions to support themselves and those closest to them by advocating for what is in their best interest.
I would love to hear a counter argument on this. I think our own personal experience on just how far the people in power will go to keep things the way they are makes this self evident. We all heard about or witnessed the RNC go to any and all lengths, illegal and otherwise to stop Ron Paul in the few states he managed to build a popular majority in, even though by that time it was obvious there was no nomination in the cards. Collectively there is no road too far and absolutely nothing these people will not do, except obviously exposing themselves, to keep their power as is. There is far too much money in the system and too much at stake for them to let us win.
This is why I support Bernie. Like Ron Paul, he is not bought out, and can not be bought out. He is trying to lead a political revolution, and unlike Paul, he stands a chance, albeit remote, of succeeding. I urge everyone to put aside the ideological differences, for one election cycle, and think about what really matters here -- we need to take back our country. The only way to do this is by standing up and taking control of our political system -- by participating at every level and voting. All it takes for these billionaires to continue to control literally everything and continue to win is for us to do nothing. They have already divided and conquered us, and it's time for us to get back together, ignore our differences, embrace our common cause, and fight back.
In short, healthcare, for example - the video shows Bernie advocating for a massive government single-payer healthcare system, then Ron Paul jumps in and talks about how everything is expensive because of government interference, with regulations, special tax breaks for some groups, and the massive insurance industry that resulted from that. Another way of looking at this, is that Sanders and Paul both agree that costs are outrageous, and the system we have right now is both causing and continually exacerbating the problem. I could honestly support either solution if it fixes the cost and access problem, and if I could flip a switch I would probably use Paul's method. The problem is that Paul had two tries to build support to do this with a Presidential run and had his message blocked by the political system both times. The RNC and media marginalizes him, like they do to so many others... Having been to northern europe a few times this year, and talking to people living there and experiencing first hand the vast differences in a successful democratic socialist country, I can see that while I will always prefer the libertarian, austrian economic, free market system -- simply forcing the corruption out of our government and going all the way the other way would also put us in an arguably better situation than we have now.
Do any of you think that the government backed system that not only supports, but puts the desires of the top 0.1% before everyone else is acceptable? We can argue that in a pure free market system the type of corruption, monopoly, and abuse would self-correct. But we don't live in that system. Ron Paul talks about that all the time. We need to deregulate, we need to change our perspective on money, and so on... so I'll put it another way -- we need to either go all the way left or all the way right. This is where we are. The middle is awful, and it screws us all over because we spend all of our political capital moving the line two inches left or two inches right of center in a field a mile wide. That's why the banks and the wealthy back both sides. It's a game and we're all the victims.
I think that maybe what people are missing here, when talking about these two politicians, is the issues they more or less agree on significantly outweigh those they disagree on. Ideologically they are obviously on opposite sides of the political spectrum on most issues (states rights, abortion, economics, you name it), but on what I consider to be the most important issues, I think they agree. Arguably the most important issue of our generation is in one way or another, campaign financing. It leads to corruption in government, media, and all of the various mega-industries that all result in the Federal government making decisions on behalf of their true constituents - the financial backers, instead of us, the people.
Another way of putting it, is that in a one dimensional system Sanders and Paul are on opposite sides, but in two dimensions (Left vs Right and Authoritarian vs Libertarian) they are both far more Libertarian than any other serious candidate, and I appreciate that.
I would LOVE to live in a world where we can have these ideological differences define our political debate. We should be talking about Keynesian versus Austrian economics, what money actually is, and how a free market should work. The problem is, as I found over the last two election cycles, is that there is such an incredible amount of corruption in the system that it is virtually impossible to even discuss these points in any semblance of a public manner, never-mind fighting for any substantive change. States rights vs Federal rights, the Income tax and abolishing the IRS, the role (or elimination) of the department of education. I think these are all important issues and I identify with the Libertarians on many of them. The thing is, at the end of the day, until we take back our political system none of it matters.
You can listen to the Republicans and the Democrats in power talk about this all day long, but I don't think it matters WHO we elect, because in the end they all do the same damned thing -- they reply to our outreach with templates, they ignore our needs, our rights, and time and time again they legislate based on the desires of their corporate masters. I'm sick and tired of these politicians spending countless hours going back and forth on issues they know we are all passionate about just to stir up the electorate. They exhaust us. They get enough people to ignore the details enough so they can perpetuate the system. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is some big conspiracy going on here with some dark group pulling all of the strings in the background -- it's simply a matter of people in the same situation (the wealthy and powerful in this case) coming to the same conclusions to support themselves and those closest to them by advocating for what is in their best interest.
I would love to hear a counter argument on this. I think our own personal experience on just how far the people in power will go to keep things the way they are makes this self evident. We all heard about or witnessed the RNC go to any and all lengths, illegal and otherwise to stop Ron Paul in the few states he managed to build a popular majority in, even though by that time it was obvious there was no nomination in the cards. Collectively there is no road too far and absolutely nothing these people will not do, except obviously exposing themselves, to keep their power as is. There is far too much money in the system and too much at stake for them to let us win.
This is why I support Bernie. Like Ron Paul, he is not bought out, and can not be bought out. He is trying to lead a political revolution, and unlike Paul, he stands a chance, albeit remote, of succeeding. I urge everyone to put aside the ideological differences, for one election cycle, and think about what really matters here -- we need to take back our country. The only way to do this is by standing up and taking control of our political system -- by participating at every level and voting. All it takes for these billionaires to continue to control literally everything and continue to win is for us to do nothing. They have already divided and conquered us, and it's time for us to get back together, ignore our differences, embrace our common cause, and fight back.
unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,412
I could watch/listen to Ron Paul speak, ALL DAY.
I cant take 30 seconds of this Sanders clown.
They're almost polar opposites.
This Sanders douche sincerely believes that government should be taking your money by force and redistributing it.
This has to be one of the biggest fundamental differences between the two men.
You are not only entitled to but you have a natural right to keep the fruits of your labor.
He believes in taking your money, he believes in big government, he does not think that its our right to be armed, he WANTS government involved in health care...
With the exception of a couple of issues, there are absolutely no similarities whatsoever between Dr. Ron Paul and clown shoes Sanders.
I cant take 30 seconds of this Sanders clown.
They're almost polar opposites.
This Sanders douche sincerely believes that government should be taking your money by force and redistributing it.
This has to be one of the biggest fundamental differences between the two men.
You are not only entitled to but you have a natural right to keep the fruits of your labor.
He believes in taking your money, he believes in big government, he does not think that its our right to be armed, he WANTS government involved in health care...
With the exception of a couple of issues, there are absolutely no similarities whatsoever between Dr. Ron Paul and clown shoes Sanders.
Last edited:
The Gold Standard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,188
If you supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, you surely must have picked up some economics knowledge along the way. What on Earth makes you think a government run single payer system is going to fix the cost and access problem? If they try to fix the cost problem, they have to do that by restricting access. You've heard of price controls, right? Why do you think these countries with socialized medicine have people waiting for months to see a doctor? I can't think of any reason why a former Ron Paul supporter would support Sanders. It's not even like Sanders is anti-war. The only war he didn't support was because it was a Republican that started it.
Of course Sanders is bought and paid for. Look at what he did to the Audit the Fed bill. He knows where his bread is buttered, and who will stand to make billions financing the enormous debt he wants to run up.
And there is no "we" in any situation that would include me and Bernie Sanders. The guy can go to hell for all I give a fuck. If "we" are "taking our country back", Bernie is definitely not on the same team I am.
Last edited:
Unlike Ron Paul, right? The same Ron Paul who support taking your money by force (excise taxes and tariffs) so he can redistribute this money to soldiers, police, judges and so on.
unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,412
Unlike Ron Paul, right? The same Ron Paul who support taking your money by force (excise taxes and tariffs) so he can redistribute this money to soldiers, police, judges and so on.
I dont know how to address you socialists.
Its difficult to convince a socialist that getting rid of the IRS is a good thing.
Primarily because they get money in the from of credits, even if they have no actual earnings.
Even if you believe in the idea of taking people's money by force or under threat of imprisonment and confiscation, you cant possibly believe that the government is the best vessel to redistribute it.
Forget about the $100 screw drivers and $500 toilet seats, they cant account for trillions...
The War On Waste.
wstrucke
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
You can start by keeping labels to yourself. You don't know me and you don't know where I stand politically, aside from the very brief thread we have going here.
If you want to have an adult conversation, I'm all ears. I am trying not to make any assumptions and I would like to understand the varied points of view, so I can continue to develop my own.
As for the many differences between Paul and Sanders, I agree they are real and important. They are both, however, much more libertarian than most of the other candidates. You have to escape the left/right model here to see my point of view. If you don't want to do that, no problem, but you should understand that the world is not black and white.
unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,412
If you support Bernie Sanders, you are a socialist, its not even a question.
With the exception of one or two issues, Bernie Sanders has nothing in common with Dr. Ron Paul.
NO-THING.
The have a fundamental different core belief system.
If up to Sanders, he would actually increase the roll of government in our lives and take more of our money in order to do it.
Nothing could be further from Ron Paul's belief system.
The bum couldn't even come thru on the Fed's audit bill.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/96587-ron-paul-says-bernie-sanders-qsold-outq-on-fed-amendment
Sanders' name is not worthy of appearing on these boards goddammit. Take it back to the DU where they believe in government running our lives.
unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,412
Lady, Sanders is a piece of filth, scum bag.
As corrupt and inefficient as our government is, this socialist piece of filth wants to give them even more control over our lives and in the process, wants to steal more of our money to do it.
If it were up to Dr. Ron Paul, he would eliminate most of the federal government and return those responsibilities to the states, where they rightfully belong.
Scum bag Sanders and Criminal Clinton voted the same way 93% of the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/u...vided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html
Ninety three goddam percent.
You think Ron Paul has anything legitimately in common with these two ass clowns???
Stop this tomfoolery immediately!
Last edited:
Ron Paul ran for President in order to take your money by force and to control your life. Didn't you read his platform?
I can see why people apeal to Sanders ideas. However, what many should remind themselves is that even if Sanders won, and even if he by some chance "fixed" the economy. What he will leave behind is an enormous power vacuum. and with no gaurantee that the next in line will be kind with the powers given to him or her.
This has always been my fundamental disagreement with Sanders and others who promote more government power. Because believe it or not. In history there have been many many more Tyrants than Peaceful Leaders.
This has always been my fundamental disagreement with Sanders and others who promote more government power. Because believe it or not. In history there have been many many more Tyrants than Peaceful Leaders.
RJ Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,313
You raise some good points. Like Wstrucke, I'm supporting Sanders (at least in my state's primary, maybe not in the general election). I don't really believe Sanders wants power. But as you say, what happens when he leaves office, having put together a federal health care infrastructure that can then be gamed by the next administration? It's a slippery slope.
Cabal
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,972
Embed
I found the section on immigration and borders to be particularly interesting, given all the anti-immigration rhetoric that has been promoted here lately. Seems many here on the anti-immigration side are actually on Bernie's side, not Ron's... How curious.
I found the section on immigration and borders to be particularly interesting, given all the anti-immigration rhetoric that has been promoted here lately. Seems many here on the anti-immigration side are actually on Bernie's side, not Ron's... How curious.
Last edited:
LibertyRevolution
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,590
What Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders have in common is that they are both seen as anti-establishment candidates. That's it.
Sanders is the anti-Hillary, I know many people that are voting for him just because they refuse to support Hillary.
Honestly, I would rather have a single payer healthcare than the strait up fascist obamacare that forces you to buy a product from a private company or be fined..
Money we spend on foreign aid, or bombing which ever brown people in some desert we are this week, I would prefer be spent providing our own people.
Sanders is the anti-Hillary, I know many people that are voting for him just because they refuse to support Hillary.
Honestly, I would rather have a single payer healthcare than the strait up fascist obamacare that forces you to buy a product from a private company or be fined..
Money we spend on foreign aid, or bombing which ever brown people in some desert we are this week, I would prefer be spent providing our own people.
Last edited:
Cabal
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,972
Bernie is about as anti-establishment in practice and reality as Cruz is anti-establishment, which is to say, not anti-establishment at all, really.
RJ Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,313
I agree that's partially it. But Ron and Bernie Sanders have the same stances on the US's out of control prison system, legalizing marijuana at the federal level and letting the states decide on pot, repealing the "PATRIOT" Act, NDAA, and other surveillance programs, and auditing (or ending) the Fed. They're polar opposites on most other things, but it's not solely the perception that they're anti-establishment. (But I found it ironic that Bernie received the "Ron Paul" media treatment until his campaign became to big for the media to ignore.)
Hillary is as war-hawkish as the most hawkish Republican candidates. Maybe even more. There's even talk, now, by both some Republicans and some Democrats, of reinstating the draft, so that our children (but never their children) will be off to fight the endless wars. Hillary Clinton's proposed war policies would require reinstating the draft, according to several sources, including possibly even drafting women. Our 18-year-old daughters. If that isn't reason enough to oppose Hillary Clinton, I don't know what is.
No disagreement here.
Similar threads
