Why Ron Paul Supporters Should Vote For Bernie Sanders

[dannno]

Climategate:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...n-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.Vb_tL_l_yT8
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

The Pause:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/06/15/a-pause-in-global-warming-not-really/

Here is one of the scientists who has been bought - by the fossil fuel industry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Nevertheless, most of you will continue to believe the 3% of scientists who discredit climate change because it fits your world view. Why else wouldn't you agree with 97% versus 3%? You must remember that scientists are actual people who, the majority of the time, go into science because they love discovery, not profits. Most of you have obviously never met an actual scientist or even have a grasp on how science actually works.

All you can do is appeal to authority by linking to establishment organizations funded by the big banks - super weak - you cannot logically defend your position yourself, I gave you plenty of material to look into that roundly rejects the theories of these climate scientists. Think for yourself.

Climategate was very important - it showed exactly what these paid off climate scientists do and that is manipulate raw data to reach a conclusion they have been paid to reach. The media deflected and wrote a bunch of BS responses, but if you saw the emails you can clearly see what the scientists were doing and you don't need a pHD in science to understand the english language.

You wanna talk about scientists who have been bought? Look into the vaccine industry. Look into the food/ag industry.

Big energy companies actually WANT you to believe in man made global warming. GE owns MSNBC, remember. They give PALTRY sums of money to supposed anti-MMGW organizations because they are deceiving you - so that they can make you think that they are trying to debunk global warming.. But the people who run these companies along with the big banks give billions to organizations that help manufacture the climate science fraud you are being presented with. This is because when the government puts out mandates and regulates energy, these big energy companies get to send their lobbyists down to DC and help write the bills and regulations which hurt their competitors and ensure they remain monopoly providers of energy to the population.

 

[Sam I am]

I see very few if any issues that Paul and Sanders agree on. Seems they both are for less surveillance and criminal justice reform... but do the similarities extend elsewhere? Other than them both being marginalized old white men, I really don't see much at all in common.

From what I read, he's more dovish than Rand, yet more hawkish than Ron

 

[phill4paul]

Vote Bernie Sanders and believe in man-made global warming. Lol. Someone's GPS took them into the wrong 'hood.

 

[Root]

Nope. Never gonna happen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ing-some-weapons-universal-background-checks/

“Second of all, I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America,” Sanders said.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I hear everyone who is in support of Rand Paul. He's my choice for the Republican nomination; however, Sanders gets my support because he is addressing some of the biggest problems of our time like climate change, income inequality, racial issues, and campaign finance reform. These problems (especially climate change) are not just going to magically poof away. Virtually all climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made and will have devastating consequences, costing billions of dollars overtime. Rand Paul's 'plan of inaction' is just not acceptable for this monumental problem that doesn't just affect America, or just humans, but everything living on this planet. Ultimately, I believe that those who don't believe in man-made climate change are just in denial because they know that this issue can only be solved by some government intervention and they don't want to change their political/economic beliefs.

For the skeptics:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Hi Adam, welcome. I can tell by your writing that you are a minarchist. I think you'll fit in nicely around here. Maybe you and R3volution could work on putting some policy together to ensure proper protection of the environment.

Out of curiosity, until such a time that your plan for us is in motion, what are you doing to minimize your carbon impact, or to neutralize that of others?

+rep

 

[TommyJeff]

... the conclusions that actual climate experts are nearly unanimous about.

be specific. What are these experts nearly unanimous in concluding? If you say they are nearly unanimous in saying the earth is warmer the last hundred years than in the 1400s, you're right. But they aren't unanimous in saying a decrease of fossil fuel burning will make any significant change.

So I say again - offer specifics please.

 

[Adam133]

be specific. What are these experts nearly unanimous in concluding? If you say they are nearly unanimous in saying the earth is warmer the last hundred years than in the 1400s, you're right. But they aren't unanimous in saying a decrease of fossil fuel burning will make any significant change.

So I say again - offer specifics please.

That 97% of climate scientists believe that our climate is warming due to human activity is what I am saying. The fact that it is due to increased CO2 emissions is quite obvious, seeing how CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how well correlated increased CO2 is with increased global temperatures. These charts show that correlation quite well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Also, for those of who saying that appeals to authority are unreliable, from where else is someone supposed to get their information? "Scientists" that have received no peer-reviews for their theory's and have never published in an actual journal? How would you know if they are telling the truth if no other knowledge scientist would support or vouch for their theory?

 

[Brett85]

Lol. Well, this isn't any more absurd than Ron Paul supporters supporting Donald Trump.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

If your a Ron Paul supporter, just listen to Ron...

"Ron Paul praised his son’s performance Saturday amid one of the most crowded GOP presidential fields in recent memory. “He’s the only one that, from my viewpoint, is talking any commonsense,” he said."

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

 

[Natural Citizen]

We don't even know how to care for one another and we're going to save the planet now? Puleeeez.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I hear everyone who is in support of Rand Paul. He's my choice for the Republican nomination; however, Sanders gets my support because he is addressing some of the biggest problems of our time like climate change, income inequality, racial issues, and campaign finance reform.

Oh for fuck's sake...

 

[Anti Federalist]

First, most people don't vote.

And thank God and Sonny Jesus for that.

I am of the opinion that, if it was not for that fact, we'd already have descended into some sort of horrid hybrid of a Jacobin-esqe blood bath and Idiocracy.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'd rather...

Yep, third time maybe a charm.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I hear everyone who is in support of Rand Paul. He's my choice for the Republican nomination; however, Sanders gets my support because he is addressing some of the biggest problems of our time like climate change, income inequality, racial issues, and campaign finance reform. These problems (especially climate change) are not just going to magically poof away. Virtually all climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made and will have devastating consequences, costing billions of dollars overtime. Rand Paul's 'plan of inaction' is just not acceptable for this monumental problem that doesn't just affect America, or just humans, but everything living on this planet. Ultimately, I believe that those who don't believe in man-made climate change are just in denial because they know that this issue can only be solved by some government intervention and they don't want to change their political/economic beliefs.

For the skeptics:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Blueprint for authoritarian, unaccountable world government.

Nice way to wrap up global fascism in a pretty bow.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Oh for fuck's sake...

Jeez, give the man a chance. Maybe he's saying we need to close the border to keep the Mexicans from taking our jerbs and forcing their culture on us.

 

[cindy25]

the only justification for a Sanders vote would be in an open primary, if Rand has already pulled out , or sewed up the GOP nomination. or if Rand does something really stupid.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't think I trust him on that part, I don't think there is any kind of protectionism left in the Democratic Party, and he would have far too much to gain with open-borders given his policy ideas mirror those of many South American banana republics. Granted, I'd probably put Bush at least equal with Sanders now that I think about it, but I'd sooner stay home or vote 3rd party than pick between Sanders and Bush.

I would beg to differ.

Check this out if you get a chance. It's an entertaining and relatively short read considering the subject matter (that is, protectionism).

Economic Sophisms by Frédéric Bastiat

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44145

Society does not become more prosperous through protectionist policies.

 

[dannno]

That 97% of climate scientists believe that our climate is warming due to human activity is what I am saying. The fact that it is due to increased CO2 emissions is quite obvious, seeing how CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how well correlated increased CO2 is with increased global temperatures. These charts show that correlation quite well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Also, for those of who saying that appeals to authority are unreliable, from where else is someone supposed to get their information? "Scientists" that have received no peer-reviews for their theory's and have never published in an actual journal? How would you know if they are telling the truth if no other knowledge scientist would support or vouch for their theory?

Actually it is CO2 that correlates with temperature change, not the other way around. The atmosphere regulates CO2 levels, humans have a negligible impact. CO2 is not really a very strong greenhouse gas, water vapor apparently is.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

These are the people who are going to save the environment?

US Navy pollutes islands cleared of natives in order to 'protect environment'

http://www.rt.com/usa/navy-polluted-pristine-waters-414/

Louisiana Health Inspector Destroys Venison Donated to the Homeless

A Louisiana state health inspector poured bleach on 1,600 pounds of venison donated to a homeless shelter last month because the health department doesn’t recognize the group that provided it.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/27/health-inspector-destroys-venison-bound

Reminds me of a good point Andrew Napolitano brought up a little while back in Theodore and Woodrow.

That is, they wanted to save endangered species. Certain owls, hawks, and various other wildlife in America. So what did they do? They made it a crime with the Endangered Species Act to so much as build a cabin near the habitat of said endangered species (in fact, if an endangered animal decides your home is a good area to inhabit, YOU are required to move). Seems good, right? Let's save the little tortoises from Man's evil, expansionist ways.... the only problem was that it became illegal to so much as cut down the dead trees around where these animals lived. Forest fires fanned and the animals died anyways. And as well, rather than losing everything because a certain owl decided to live near their property, the owls were hunted and buried.

They couldn't solve an issue if the answer was obvious. Most of their policies actually exacerbate the issues they are trying to solve. And frankly, the day the group which poisoned its own mercenaries or employees, citizens and the public to test biological and chemical warfare agents on foreign population centers gets to preach to me about the environment and that I am uncaring, well, let's just say it would be apt for an Orwell novel.

They poison people. Purposely, indiscriminately, and often on accident. Where are the 97% of scientists to speak out against as much? Oh, many were taking part? You can imagine why I am skeptical of your premise.