Why Ron Paul Supporters Should Vote For Bernie Sanders

[dannno]

Climategate:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l#.Vb_tL_l_yT8
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

The Pause:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ed-study-finds
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...ng-not-really/

Here is one of the scientists who has been bought - by the fossil fuel industry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us...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/...ground-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/20...ing-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 $#@!'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 $#@!'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/20...ing-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-...ne-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/he...-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.

[Cutlerzzz]

FYI. Sander wants to reintroduce because the Fairness Doctrine and threaten talk radio hosts because "95-98% are right wing extremists", ban certain people and companies from donating in political campaigns, ban hate speech, ban all guns that can be "used in self defense", he routinely claims that immigrants are damaging the middle class, routinely blames foreign countries for economic problems in the US, routinely says that the rich are in on a conspiracy to stop his goals, and the guy has even been caught off camera threatening a Libertarian journalist for asking him difficult questions.

Sanders is not some nice old guy. He is how totalitarianism comes to the United States and represents a Hugo Chavez style blend of Nationalism and Socialism. Most candidates have some nationalist and socialist beliefs, but Sanders is on a different level, which combined with his demagoguery, is the most dangerous kind. Unlike most democrats who love the rich lobbyist and won't actually try to destroy them (rather they would generally help them through regulatory, monetary, and tax policy [loopholes]), Sanders actually means it. He also really would take free speech, censor opposition through force, implement major gun bans, scapegoat everyone else citing conspiracies, and ignore what 90+% of economist have to say about price controls and international trade if he could.

[puppetmaster]

So what I am sensing here is that you believe that somehow practically every single climate scientist, including ones from private universities, have been bought out by the government in order to fool the population into believing that the government must take action to avoid climate catastrophe. Seems a little far-fetched. Why would you believe that instead of just agreeing with the conclusions that actual climate experts are nearly unanimous about. Are you a PhD in climate studies too, or are you just making up a theory so that you'll feel more comfortable about your other beliefs?

actually if you know how the government grant system works you would know it is not far fetched to see studies written to ensure funding. I have a professional grant writer in the family and this is common.

[VIDEODROME]

Isn't he talking about a hand gun ban?

I can understand some concern about how handguns are sold or even having a dialogue about background checks, but elimination of handguns in America seems like a ridiculous idea that is unenforceable or makes currently law abiding citizens into criminals.

[kcchiefs6465]

Isn't he talking about a hand gun ban?

I can understand some concern about how handguns are sold or even having a dialogue about background checks, but elimination of handguns in America seems like a ridiculous idea that is unenforceable or makes currently law abiding citizens into criminals.

He's talking about "assault rifles."

That is, a rifle which cosmetically looks 'scary.'

What's the issue with handguns versus other firearms?

[TommyJeff]

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/20...ing-the-world/

i appreciate your reply. You're very mistaken, but at least you're not making a post and then running away to hide. Your link says nothing about 97% of scientists agreeing the earth is warming due to man. But more importantly, do 97% say that's a problem???
do 97% say we can make the earth cool if we stop CO2 from entering the atmosphere? Not sure if you took 3rd grade science but you're exhaling CO2 right now. I hope Sanders has a plan to limit your CO2 exhaling.

Your link says CO2 has increased by 40% since 1750. Which scientist in the mid 1700s was able to study greenhouse gasses?! And CO2 makes up way under 1% of the atmosphere. I think it could be .0004% but I don't remember offhand. So is a 40% increase good or bad? What is the exact percentage of CO2 we need in the atmosphere? what is out target percentage? You can't say more or less.....scientists need numbers to be specific - so what do they say we "need"? And of course, how can we achieve this? By we, of course, I only mean Americans. Americans limiting coal burning is going to save the planet, that's why you want these policies, right?
im looking forward to your specific answers.

[TommyJeff]

Isn't he talking about a hand gun ban?

Sounds exactly like Dr. Paul's position. LOL!!!

[Ronin Truth]

Terrestrial Atmosphere

Surface pressure: 1014 mb
Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3
Scale height: 8.5 km
Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 1018 kg
Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 1021 kg
Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 283 K to 293 K (10 to 20 C)
Wind speeds: 0 to 100 m/s
Mean molecular weight: 28.97 g/mole
Atmospheric composition (by volume, dry air):
Major : 78.084% Nitrogen (N2), 20.946% Oxygen (O2),
Minor (ppm): Argon (Ar) - 9340; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 400
Neon (Ne) - 18.18; Helium (He) - 5.24; CH4 - 1.7
Krypton (Kr) - 1.14; Hydrogen (H2) - 0.55
Water is highly variable, typically makes up about 1%

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...earthfact.html

[acptulsa]

His brand of "socialism" is simply trying to return America to a more true democratic republic, instead of the oligarchy which it is today. If anyone is interested, this Sanders subreddit explains his platform well.

Number one: If Sanders wasn't perfectly willing to let the big corporations have their way, you'd have heard about as much about him in the media as you've heard about Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb. Which is to say, nothing. Who do you think runs the media? Whose commercials do they air? You're misplacing your faith.

Number two: If you were actually thinking about how to strip power from the Oligarchy, the last thing you'd be calling for is federal control of everything. Suppose Washington controls your police department and your board of education (and it has nearly gotten that bad already). If the Democrats replace education with propaganda and the Republicans fill your police department with bloodthirsty ex-Marines that want to shoot everyone who frowns at them, how do you fix it? Even if everyone in the nation isn't so wrapped up arguing over gay marriage and abortion to worry about your police and your local schools, how do you fix it?

I'll tell you how to fix it, if you really want to know. You take responsibility for your local board of education and your local law enforcement out of the hands of Washington, and you and your neighbors handle it yourselves. That's how you fight tyranny, not by desperately trying to find the right micromismanagers to send to Washington. Yeah, supposedly the advantage to sending all our money to Washington is Washington steals from the rich states and gives to the poor states. That's the only logical argument against local control. But I live in a poor state, and I can assure you that most of the federal money we pay does not come back to us. We pay our federal taxes, but Amtrak made us pay extra out of our state budget for the only Amtrak service we have. I guess all the federal taxes we pay Amtrak goes to keeping the rich of Connecticut from driving into New York City by keeping commuter fares below the cost of parking. Washington steals from the poor and gives to the rich because they're much more interested in getting kickbacks than in loving us and making us happy.

The whole concept is stupid on the face of it. Washington is known to be corrupt and inefficient. Someone has to pay the utilities and the salaries and the extra for bribes. The best case scenario is the rich states pay all that overhead and the poor states get back what they paid in (and no more). That's the best case scenario, and it exposes the ridiculousness of depending on Washington to 'share the wealth' with the poorest Americans.

That's just a fact of life.

Washington can only prove that government is the worst entity to entrust with charity. If you want to prove socialism can work, keep it local. And if you want to keep the socialism local, then that is no reason for us to support that old clown Sanders. That is a reason--a good reason--for you to support Rand Paul. You see, he believes in the Tenth Amendment. He will let you have all the county and state level socialism you can get your neighbors to agree to. He just won't let the incredibly corrupt town of Washington have anything to do with it.

If you won't listen to a lifelong independent voter just because I registered Republican in 2008 so I could vote for Ron Paul in a closed primary, then listen to a Democrat who was a lot smarter than either you or me. And really listen. Truly decide if he made sense:

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, & from under the eye of their constituents, will, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer & overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizen; and the same circumstance by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder & waste: And I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail of a common law being in force in the U.S. (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the state governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government) it would become the most corrupt government on the face of the earth.--Thomas Jefferson

You can vote socialists into your county commissioner panel all you want. But if you don't vote to send Rand Paul to Washington, D.C, then you're worthless as a fighter of corruption, and as a champion for getting the oligarchy out of government and turning it over to We, the People.

[Occam's Banana]

Number one: If Sanders wasn't perfectly willing to let the big corporations have their way, you'd have heard about as much about him in the media as you've heard about Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb. Which is to say, nothing. You're misplacing your faith.

Number two: If you were actually thinking about how to strip power from the Oligarchy, the last thing you'd be calling for is federal control of everything. Suppose Washington controls your police department and your board of education (and it has nearly gotten that bad already). If the Democrats replace education with propaganda and the Republicans fill your police department with bloodthirsty ex-Marines that want to shoot everyone who frowns at them, how do you fix it? Even if everyone in the nation isn't so wrapped up arguing over gay marriage and abortion to worry about your police and your local schools, how do you fix it?

I'll tell you how to fix it, if you really want to know. You take responsibility for your local board of education and your local law enforcement out of the hands of Washington, and you and your neighbors handle it yourselves. That's how you fight tyranny, not by desperately trying to find the right micromismanagers to send to Washington. Yeah, supposedly the advantage to sending all our money to Washington is Washington steals from the rich states and gives to the poor states. That's the only logical argument against local control. But I live in a poor state, and I can assure you that most of the federal money we pay does not come back to us. We pay our federal taxes, but Amtrak made us pay extra out of our state budget for the only Amtrak service we have. I guess all the federal taxes we pay Amtrak goes to keeping the rich of Connecticut from driving into New York City by keeping commuter fares below the cost of parking. Washington steals from the poor and gives to the rich because they're much more interested in getting kickbacks than in loving us and making us happy.

That's just a fact of life.

Washington can only prove that government is the worst entity to entrust with charity. If you want to prove socialism can work, keep it local. And if you want to keep the socialism local, then that is no reason for us to support that old clown Sanders. That is a reason--a good reason--for you to support Rand Paul. You see, he believes in the Tenth Amendment. He will let you have all the county and state level socialism you can get your neighbors to agree to. He just won't let the incredibly corrupt town of Washington have anything to do with it.

If you won't listen to a lifelong independent voter just because I registered Republican in 2008 so I could vote for Ron Paul in a closed primary, then listen to a Democrat who was a lot smarter than either you or me. And really listen. Truly decide if he made sense:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

[Anti Federalist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

Covered