Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Bernie vs. Ron Paul: There’s No Comparison

  1. #1
    Temporary Ban New York, NY



    Posts
    746
    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Bernie vs. Ron Paul: There’s No Comparison

    Super Tuesday may have been the beginning of the end for the Bernie Sanders campaign, but the ideas that propelled it are likely to linger for quite some time. With some writers comparing Bernie to Ron Paul (not in terms of economics and philosophy, of course, but as insurgent candidates), now seemed like an opportune moment to examine the Sanders message and legacy, and compare it to Ron’s.
    Like Ron, Bernie surprised all the pundits with his fundraising, polling, and electoral success. In fact, so successful has Sanders been that Hillary Clinton has been reduced to a pathetic and unconvincing “me, too” campaign — I can be just like Bernie, if that’s what you rubes want!
    Bernie has gained a lot of traction from his complaints that Hillary is in the tank for Wall Street and the big banks. He’s likewise pointed to the six-figure honoraria Hillary has earned from speeches given to the big banks.
    The best the now-hapless Bill Clinton could do in reply was to note that Bernie, too, had been paid to give speeches. Technically, Bill was right. Bernie had earned money from public speaking: a whopping $1,800 over the course of a year. The year before that, Bernie had earned $1,300 from public speaking. All of this money was donated to charity, as is the requirement for US senators.
    It’s true that Bernie is better than Hillary on foreign policy, but in keeping with Rothbard’s Law — everyone concentrates in the area in which he is worst — Bernie speaks very little about issues of war and peace. And even there, consistency and principle are elusive: he supported Bill Clinton’s bombing of Serbia over Kosovo, an act of terror based on propaganda that rivaled anything George W. Bush ever peddled. Sanders favors the ongoing drone campaigns, too, and even supported the F-35, one of the biggest boondoggles in the Pentagon’s long and sorry history.
    Bernie’s primary legacy will be to have resuscitated the idea of socialism in the minds of many Americans. It is a very confused socialism, to be sure. The young people who follow Bernie can’t even seem to define socialism, according to recent surveys. And in fact Bernie’s economics is really just a hyper-Keynesianism rather than out-and-out socialism. But by suggesting that the Scandinavian countries constitute a model that the United States should emulate, he has encouraged the idea that only large-scale, systemic change in the direction of vastly increased government power can produce the kind of society Americans want.
    Capitalism ought to be our default position, since it conforms to the basic moral insights we acquired in our youth: keep your word, live up to your agreements, don’t take what doesn’t belong to you, and do not cause anyone physical harm.
    But thanks to years of propaganda to the contrary, socialism has come to appear to many people as not simply a morally plausible position but clearly and obviously desirable and superior to the capitalist alternative. The free market, they are convinced from what they recall from their elementary school textbooks, leads to “monopoly” and oppression.
    Bernie speaks as if the system is rigged against the people because of business influence in government — a fair enough point, as far as it goes — but it’s hard to take this criticism seriously when his proposed solution is to extend the influence of politics over more and more areas of life and increase the powers and scope of the very government he is supposed to be criticizing.
    The Sanders narrative is rooted in two major historical claims, both of them dead wrong.
    First, Sanders believes “capitalism” was to blame for the 2008 crash. But as mises.org readers know, that downturn, like the Great Depression before it, was preceded by years of Federal Reserve credit expansion. According to the Austrian theory of the business cycle, the artificial lowering of interest rates below free-market levels sets in motion an unsustainable economic boom. The economy is set on a path that could be sustained only if real resource availability were greater than it really is. Eventually, when real savings and resources turn out not to exist in the abundance that the Fed’s interventions misled people into expecting, projects have to be abandoned and the phony prosperity becomes real recession.
    Sanders supporters will no doubt point to the great number of bad mortgages originated by private lenders. But would these mortgage loans have been extended in the first place if institutions like Countrywide couldn’t sell them to the government-privileged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Fannie and Freddie enjoyed special tax and regulatory advantages and had a special line of credit from the US Treasury — a line of credit everyone knew would be essentially limitless if push ever came to shove.
    It was the perfect storm: the Fed’s crazed monetary policy injected huge quantities of additional credit circulating throughout the economy, and the federal government’s various mandates and regulations made real estate an artificially attractive outlet for all that new money. When this ramshackle edifice came crashing down, capitalism — which, in the midst of all this money creation and regulatory lunacy, had never been tried — took the blame.
    Indeed, what could be intellectually easier than blaming the “free market” for a phenomenon a critic doesn’t understand? Ron Paul, on the other hand, never tired in his own presidential campaigns of going beyond surface explanations to account for what really happened in the disaster of ’08, and identify who the real culprits were.
    The other part of the Sanders story — Scandinavia — is shallow and misleading, too.
    In fact, Denmark’s own prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, finally had to correct the Vermont senator’s references to his country as “socialist.” “I would like to make one thing clear,” Rasmussen said. “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
    Still, there’s no question Denmark has a large public sector. And it’s starting to suck the life out of the place. Denmark’s various benefits subsidize idleness to an absurd and unmanageable degree. In the country’s 98 municipalities, guess how many have a majority of residents working. If you answered three, you know far more about Denmark than Bernie and his supporters do.
    It’s a similar story in the rest of Scandinavia. For instance, Sweden’s welfare state was able to develop only because of the wealth created by decades and decades of a prosperous market economy. Private-sector job creation was anemic to nonexistent in the decades following the radical expansion of the Swedish welfare state. And as for Norway, there are lots of “free” things there, it’s true — if you’re prepared to pay a 75 percent effective tax rate.
    The comparison of Bernie to Ron goes like this: both launched insurgent, anti-establishment presidential campaigns while in their 70s, shook up their respective party establishments, and attracted large youth followings. But Bernie is no Ron.
    Just on the surface: Bernie is a grump and difficult to work with; Ron is a kindhearted gentleman who always showed his appreciation for the people in his office.
    More importantly, Ron urged his followers to read and learn. Countless high school and college students began reading dense and difficult treatises in economics and political philosophy because Ron encouraged them to. Bernie’s followers receive no such encouragement. And why should they? Bernie’s platform merely regurgitates the fallacies and prejudices his young followers already imbibed in school. What more is there to read?
    Ron’s followers, meanwhile, were curious enough to dig beneath the surface. Is the state really a benign institution that can costlessly provide us whatever we might demand? Or might there be moral, economic, and political factors standing in the way of these utopian dreams?
    Bernie’s supporters demand material things for themselves, to be handed to them at the expense of strangers they have been taught to despise. But like Ron himself — who as an OB/GYN opposed restrictions on midwives even though doing so was not in his material interest — the young Paulians embraced the message of liberty without a thought for material advantage.
    It’s not hard to cultivate a raving band of people demanding other people’s things. Such appeals arouse the basest aspects of our nature, and will always attract a crowd. It’s very hard, on the other hand, to build up an army of young people intellectually curious enough to read serious books and consider ideas that go beyond the conventional wisdom they learned in school about government and market. It’s hard to build up a movement of people whose moral sense is developed enough to recognize that barking demands and enforcing them with the state’s gun is the behavior of a thug, not a civilized person. And it’s hard to persuade people of the counter-intuitive idea that society runs better and individuals are more prosperous when no one is “in charge” at all.
    Yet Ron accomplished all these things. And that is why, when we position the Vermont senator against the Texas congressman, Ron’s achievement is so much greater and more historic.

    03/08/2016Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

    People need to read it. Too many Ex-Ron Paul supporters are supporting this lunatic Bernie Sanders!
    Last edited by Sammy; 02-22-2020 at 02:49 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    If you go from supporting Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders, you never cared about freedom.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
    Super Tuesday may have been the beginning of the end for the Bernie Sanders campaign, but the ideas that propelled it are likely to linger for quite some time. With some writers comparing Bernie to Ron Paul (not in terms of economics and philosophy, of course, but as insurgent candidates), now seemed like an opportune moment to examine the Sanders message and legacy, and compare it to Ron’s.
    Like Ron, Bernie surprised all the pundits with his fundraising, polling, and electoral success. In fact, so successful has Sanders been that Hillary Clinton has been reduced to a pathetic and unconvincing “me, too” campaign — I can be just like Bernie, if that’s what you rubes want!
    Bernie has gained a lot of traction from his complaints that Hillary is in the tank for Wall Street and the big banks. He’s likewise pointed to the six-figure honoraria Hillary has earned from speeches given to the big banks.
    The best the now-hapless Bill Clinton could do in reply was to note that Bernie, too, had been paid to give speeches. Technically, Bill was right. Bernie had earned money from public speaking: a whopping $1,800 over the course of a year. The year before that, Bernie had earned $1,300 from public speaking. All of this money was donated to charity, as is the requirement for US senators.
    It’s true that Bernie is better than Hillary on foreign policy, but in keeping with Rothbard’s Law — everyone concentrates in the area in which he is worst — Bernie speaks very little about issues of war and peace. And even there, consistency and principle are elusive: he supported Bill Clinton’s bombing of Serbia over Kosovo, an act of terror based on propaganda that rivaled anything George W. Bush ever peddled. Sanders favors the ongoing drone campaigns, too, and even supported the F-35, one of the biggest boondoggles in the Pentagon’s long and sorry history.
    Bernie’s primary legacy will be to have resuscitated the idea of socialism in the minds of many Americans. It is a very confused socialism, to be sure. The young people who follow Bernie can’t even seem to define socialism, according to recent surveys. And in fact Bernie’s economics is really just a hyper-Keynesianism rather than out-and-out socialism. But by suggesting that the Scandinavian countries constitute a model that the United States should emulate, he has encouraged the idea that only large-scale, systemic change in the direction of vastly increased government power can produce the kind of society Americans want.
    Capitalism ought to be our default position, since it conforms to the basic moral insights we acquired in our youth: keep your word, live up to your agreements, don’t take what doesn’t belong to you, and do not cause anyone physical harm.
    But thanks to years of propaganda to the contrary, socialism has come to appear to many people as not simply a morally plausible position but clearly and obviously desirable and superior to the capitalist alternative. The free market, they are convinced from what they recall from their elementary school textbooks, leads to “monopoly” and oppression.
    Bernie speaks as if the system is rigged against the people because of business influence in government — a fair enough point, as far as it goes — but it’s hard to take this criticism seriously when his proposed solution is to extend the influence of politics over more and more areas of life and increase the powers and scope of the very government he is supposed to be criticizing.
    The Sanders narrative is rooted in two major historical claims, both of them dead wrong.
    First, Sanders believes “capitalism” was to blame for the 2008 crash. But as mises.org readers know, that downturn, like the Great Depression before it, was preceded by years of Federal Reserve credit expansion. According to the Austrian theory of the business cycle, the artificial lowering of interest rates below free-market levels sets in motion an unsustainable economic boom. The economy is set on a path that could be sustained only if real resource availability were greater than it really is. Eventually, when real savings and resources turn out not to exist in the abundance that the Fed’s interventions misled people into expecting, projects have to be abandoned and the phony prosperity becomes real recession.
    Sanders supporters will no doubt point to the great number of bad mortgages originated by private lenders. But would these mortgage loans have been extended in the first place if institutions like Countrywide couldn’t sell them to the government-privileged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Fannie and Freddie enjoyed special tax and regulatory advantages and had a special line of credit from the US Treasury — a line of credit everyone knew would be essentially limitless if push ever came to shove.
    It was the perfect storm: the Fed’s crazed monetary policy injected huge quantities of additional credit circulating throughout the economy, and the federal government’s various mandates and regulations made real estate an artificially attractive outlet for all that new money. When this ramshackle edifice came crashing down, capitalism — which, in the midst of all this money creation and regulatory lunacy, had never been tried — took the blame.
    Indeed, what could be intellectually easier than blaming the “free market” for a phenomenon a critic doesn’t understand? Ron Paul, on the other hand, never tired in his own presidential campaigns of going beyond surface explanations to account for what really happened in the disaster of ’08, and identify who the real culprits were.
    The other part of the Sanders story — Scandinavia — is shallow and misleading, too.
    In fact, Denmark’s own prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, finally had to correct the Vermont senator’s references to his country as “socialist.” “I would like to make one thing clear,” Rasmussen said. “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
    Still, there’s no question Denmark has a large public sector. And it’s starting to suck the life out of the place. Denmark’s various benefits subsidize idleness to an absurd and unmanageable degree. In the country’s 98 municipalities, guess how many have a majority of residents working. If you answered three, you know far more about Denmark than Bernie and his supporters do.
    It’s a similar story in the rest of Scandinavia. For instance, Sweden’s welfare state was able to develop only because of the wealth created by decades and decades of a prosperous market economy. Private-sector job creation was anemic to nonexistent in the decades following the radical expansion of the Swedish welfare state. And as for Norway, there are lots of “free” things there, it’s true — if you’re prepared to pay a 75 percent effective tax rate.
    The comparison of Bernie to Ron goes like this: both launched insurgent, anti-establishment presidential campaigns while in their 70s, shook up their respective party establishments, and attracted large youth followings. But Bernie is no Ron.
    Just on the surface: Bernie is a grump and difficult to work with; Ron is a kindhearted gentleman who always showed his appreciation for the people in his office.
    More importantly, Ron urged his followers to read and learn. Countless high school and college students began reading dense and difficult treatises in economics and political philosophy because Ron encouraged them to. Bernie’s followers receive no such encouragement. And why should they? Bernie’s platform merely regurgitates the fallacies and prejudices his young followers already imbibed in school. What more is there to read?
    Ron’s followers, meanwhile, were curious enough to dig beneath the surface. Is the state really a benign institution that can costlessly provide us whatever we might demand? Or might there be moral, economic, and political factors standing in the way of these utopian dreams?
    Bernie’s supporters demand material things for themselves, to be handed to them at the expense of strangers they have been taught to despise. But like Ron himself — who as an OB/GYN opposed restrictions on midwives even though doing so was not in his material interest — the young Paulians embraced the message of liberty without a thought for material advantage.
    It’s not hard to cultivate a raving band of people demanding other people’s things. Such appeals arouse the basest aspects of our nature, and will always attract a crowd. It’s very hard, on the other hand, to build up an army of young people intellectually curious enough to read serious books and consider ideas that go beyond the conventional wisdom they learned in school about government and market. It’s hard to build up a movement of people whose moral sense is developed enough to recognize that barking demands and enforcing them with the state’s gun is the behavior of a thug, not a civilized person. And it’s hard to persuade people of the counter-intuitive idea that society runs better and individuals are more prosperous when no one is “in charge” at all.
    Yet Ron accomplished all these things. And that is why, when we position the Vermont senator against the Texas congressman, Ron’s achievement is so much greater and more historic.

    03/08/2016Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

    People need to read it. Too many Ex-Ron Paul supporters are supporting this lunatic Bernie Sanders!
    Its the lesser of two evil dilemma. The choice is not between Ron and Bernie but between Bernie and Trump. So you have to convince them that Trump is closer to Ron that Trump on their issues of priority.

    This is the same logic ex Ron supporters used to support Trump. A man who aggressively opposed his candidacy when he ran

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Its the lesser of two evil dilemma. The choice is not between Ron and Bernie but between Bernie and Trump. So you have to convince them that Trump is closer to Ron that Trump on their issues of priority.

    This is the same logic ex Ron supporters used to support Trump. A man who aggressively opposed his candidacy when he ran
    I'm trying really hard to picture a liberty candidate sitting on air force one with a president Sanders.

    Now maybe you say it means nothing and doesn't change anything, but it's far closer to having ANY influence on policy than any libertarian-minded person has EVER gotten since David Nolan retreated from the Republican Party in 1971. It just perplexes me that people would think the democratic party would be easier to work with. Maybe if the Blue Dogs from the 1990s were still in existence, but these aren't the same donkeys.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I'm trying really hard to picture a liberty candidate sitting on air force one with a president Sanders.

    Now maybe you say it means nothing and doesn't change anything, but it's far closer to having ANY influence on policy than any libertarian-minded person has EVER gotten since David Nolan retreated from the Republican Party in 1971. It just perplexes me that people would think the democratic party would be easier to work with. Maybe if the Blue Dogs from the 1990s were still in existence, but these aren't the same donkeys.
    The bolsheviks are taking over the party and their apologists think we are stupid enough to believe they can be our allies.

  7. #6
    hey...could you please start a Trump vs Ron Paul. There's No comparison. K...thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever..... just like Trump said.



    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

    Fascism Defined

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    hey...could you please start a Trump vs Ron Paul. There's No comparison. K...thanks.
    Nobody said there was a comparison.

    But Trump is still moving things in the right direction.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Nobody said there was a comparison.

    But Trump is still moving things in the right direction.
    Platitude

    A platitude is a trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement, often used as a thought-terminating cliché, aimed at quelling social, emotional, or cognitive unease. Platitudes have been criticized as giving a false impression of wisdom, making it easy to accept falsehoods: A platitude is even worse than a cliché.
    nothing but platitudes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever..... just like Trump said.



    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

    Fascism Defined



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    nothing but platitudes.
    That's all you've got, I post stories where Trump is moving us in the right direction all the time.

    All you have is "Orange Man Bad".

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That's all you've got, I post propaganda and one sided bull$#@! where Trump is shown moving in the right direction all the time.
    All you have is "Orange Man Bad".

    FIFY.

    Give me your address. You are in dire need of this book.

    https://www.amazon.com/Bull$#@!-Harr.../dp/0691122946
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever..... just like Trump said.



    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

    Fascism Defined

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    FIFY.

    Give me your address. You are in dire need of this book.

    https://www.amazon.com/Bull$#@!-Harr.../dp/0691122946
    More platitudes

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    More platitudes
    ha. That little 30 page essay has more wisdom and knowledge and understanding of people like you than your 60 thousand posts have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever..... just like Trump said.



    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

    Fascism Defined

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    ha. That little 30 page essay has more wisdom and knowledge and understanding of people like you than your 60 thousand posts have.
    You still are not making an argument, you are just ignoring the truth and asserting your wishes as fact.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I'm trying really hard to picture a liberty candidate sitting on air force one with a president Sanders.

    Now maybe you say it means nothing and doesn't change anything, but it's far closer to having ANY influence on policy than any libertarian-minded person has EVER gotten since David Nolan retreated from the Republican Party in 1971. It just perplexes me that people would think the democratic party would be easier to work with. Maybe if the Blue Dogs from the 1990s were still in existence, but these aren't the same donkeys.
    To be fair, Ron Paul was able to work with progressives like Sanders and Kucinich when he was in the house. On issues like law and order, national security and the fed we can work together. But just like with Trump, there is. O guarantee that the result will be in our favor

  17. #15
    Temporary Ban New York, NY



    Posts
    746
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Its the lesser of two evil dilemma. The choice is not between Ron and Bernie but between Bernie and Trump. So you have to convince them that Trump is closer to Ron that Trump on their issues of priority.

    This is the same logic ex Ron supporters used to support Trump. A man who aggressively opposed his candidacy when he ran
    My biggest issues are Foreign Policy (Non Interventionist),National Debt,Immigration & Guns!
    Trump is weak on spending but better than Bernie sanders.Trump at least didn't start any new wars Bernie sanders voted for wars.
    On Immigration Trump opposes welfare for immigrants & Birthright citizenship. Bernie supports amnesty for all illegal aliens & he wants more immigration.
    On Guns Trump is again not perfect but Bernie is going to take our guns.
    The only issue Bernie is better is maybe israel & Saudi arabia! But still even on this issues he supports foreign aid!

  18. #16
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,416
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    nothing but platitudes.
    That is one point of view... I see another.

    Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave’
    https://www.latimes.com/california/s...es-9th-circuit

    How Trump's 10 Picks Have Already Shifted The 9th Circuit
    https://www.law360.com/articles/1243...he-9th-circuit
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    I will just add Ron Paul supporters that have flipped to Bernie even over Trump, don't care about the court appointments, perhaps they don't understand, or they are one issue voters. Trump will be gone, Bernie will be gone, but those influential appointments are going to frame the law for the 21st century.
    And when it comes to your precocious 2nd amendment rights, all that stands between you having them or not is a SCOTUS that doesn't decide to take a political stance and redefine "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" as being the national guard authorized by the state itself.
    If liberal judges do this, kiss all your gun rights goodbye. I also would like stronger laws from the supreme court that protect the genocide of the unwanted unborn. Bernie can't give us either of those.
    I will say it again, conservative judges are the last line of defense against alt-left insanity.

    As far a foreign policy at least Trumps fires those that push him to be too hawkish, but it's partly his own fault for hiring neocons, did he really think he was going to change them just because he is the President.
    Last edited by ProBlue33; 02-23-2020 at 11:08 AM.
    Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    I will just add Ron Paul supporters that have flipped to Bernie even over Trump, don't care about the court appointments, perhaps they don't understand, or they are one issue voters. Trump will be gone, Bernie will be gone, but those influential appointments are going to frame the law for the 21st century.
    And when it comes to your precocious 2nd amendment rights, all that stands between you having them or not is a SCOTUS that doesn't decide to take a political stance and redefine "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" as being the national guard authorized by the state itself.
    If liberal judges do this, kiss all your gun rights goodbye. I also would like stronger laws from the supreme court that protect the genocide of the unwanted unborn. Bernie can't give us either of those.
    I will say it again, conservative judges are the last line of defense against alt-left insanity.
    People said the same about Bush, they say he might not be a good president but at least he will nominate good judges that would outlast his presidency. And then Justice Roberts in his twisted logic gave us Obamacare. If the president is unprincipled, doesn't care about the constitution or due process, then it doesn't make sense that he would nominate justices who do care.

    These judges are good until they stop being good and then you are stuck with them. You need someone in the executive branch to sell to convincingly sell to the people these ideas that will once again restore the republic.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    People said the same about Bush, they say he might not be a good president but at least he will nominate good judges that would outlast his presidency. And then Justice Roberts in his twisted logic gave us Obamacare. If the president is unprincipled, doesn't care about the constitution or due process, then it doesn't make sense that he would nominate justices who do care.

    These judges are good until they stop being good and then you are stuck with them. You need someone in the executive branch to sell to convincingly sell to the people these ideas that will once again restore the republic.
    Trump is picking much better judges.



Similar Threads

  1. Comparison: Ron Paul 2008 and Bernie Sanders 2016
    By TNforPaul45 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-30-2016, 06:59 PM
  2. Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul: A Comparison.
    By Objectivist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-23-2009, 03:56 PM
  3. Huck/Paul Comparison--does anyone have one done?
    By RPsupporterAtHeart in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 04:39 PM
  4. VIDEO: Ron Paul and 300, a comparison
    By Trance Dance Master in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-17-2007, 08:30 AM
  5. Ron paul 300 comparison
    By aravoth in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 03:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •