Ron Paul Vs Bernie Sanders

These guys are polar opposites.

Why did they both win the internet vote?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but both seemed to be the "answer".
I cant make sense of it.

Was it the anarchist vote?
Or maybe dumb idealistic kids?

I was a massive fan of both, yet to be for one you really should be against the other.

Has anyone else questioned their inconsistency over the two?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

My support of Bernie would have only been to avoid Hillary and Trump. I don't agree with his stances on taxes and things like that, but he had that same Ron Paul feel of being a real person who might be:

"not the guy tptb want"


Now I'm undecided but I hate liars... hmm...

Gary Johnson maybe.

Largely because they're both anti-establishments. Ron Paul wants personal freedoms and to not have a big system telling you what to do. Sanders wants to take down big business and make them stop running the government. Remember, neither could truly succeed, so it'd be a push in that direction. In part it could be said that it's an anarchy vote because it's hitting those with power between the eyes. Sanders also suggested free college and such, Paul also suggested fighting down our debt to give us more of a future. Since a large chunk of the internet vote overlaps with the millennial vote (which is strapped with debt and will probably still be around when the dollar finally collapses) they tend to be liked by that crowd. Internet freedom activists also tend to be more librarian which contributes to the Paul internet vote. Hillary&Trump early on advocated some more internet censorship before backing off on it, so that internet freedom push might have favored sanders too.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
These guys are polar opposites.

Why did they both win the internet vote?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but both seemed to be the "answer".
I cant make sense of it.

Was it the anarchist vote?
Or maybe dumb idealistic kids?

I was a massive fan of both, yet to be for one you really should be against the other.

Has anyone else questioned their inconsistency over the two?

I believe that the further out you get the closer you get.

Even though Socialism, as Sanders defines it and Libertarian ism have a different path they both get us out of the Two Party, corrupt, Corporate Oligarchy System that we have now. Nobody likes what we have now, Older people like it because It's comfortable and they can overlook the corruption, but the younger generation doesn't have those sentimental ties. We all know we need something different. Radically different.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I found myself within the same dilemma, as I disagree strongly with certain aspects of Bernies policies. I supported him throughout this because I have always believed the choices we had have been Sanders or Shillary, I still maintain that Trump works for the Clinton Family aka global elite!

I have always supported Ron Paul yet they were able to simply ghost him. This time around Sanders seemed genuine, regardless of the way it turned out, his rallying of independents crossed the political isle has truly been a rising up against the elite, period.

Then he stabs us all in the back. Brutal! We needed him to go third party!

When you make the point about them being polar opposites I think you touch on something that truly needs to be analyzed. We need a third party, desperately, that can gain the attention of independents across the board. I think that their opposition is summed up in the Green Party/ Libertarian option.

We need balance and I honestly feel if we have any chance of coming together we would need to see a Paul/Sanders style ticket, which in reality would have to come about by Stein/Johnson finding a way to come together and unite.

Divided we fall and it is just where the elite want us to stay!

Ron Paul=coke

Bernie Sanders-pepsi.

Neither one was the real thing.

a reply to: MaddenedRambler

A typically ATS-simplistic analysis/assumption. I'm 64. The majority of my friends and associates are in their 50's and 60s. All well educated, accomplished and almost all Bernie supporters. Most were also Ron Paul supporters. We've all been around long enough to have seen the country circling the drain and an accelerating pace. We've come to realize that by simply replacing Republicans with Democrats and Democrats with Republicans things only get worse. We're old enough to know that you can't expect a different outcome when you do the same thing over and over. The arrogance and disregard/disdain of the citizenry by those in office has grown at an alarming rate while our lot --- that of the peasantry --- has become more dire. There are two sets of rules, two sets of books, two sets of standards, and two economies. And each new gang of politicians that finds its way to the trough wants more than their predecessors while doing less of their 'jobs'. It has gotten so bad that it has become almost comical in a Tarantino-esque kind of way. Make no mistake. We're screwed.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

They won because they have integrity, new ideas, and age would make them a guaranteed 1 termer. People are sick of the status quo and sick of 2 term presidents. Get some people in, try something new, and repeat. That's what people want. Just look at Trump, that's where his support also comes from... they like that he's saying new things while Hillary is more of the same.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

No inconsistency here. I wholeheartedly support Bernie Sanders and did NOT support Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a right-leaning Libertarian and Bernie is a left-leaning Democratic Socialist. Their position on the issues differ greatly.

People seem to make the assumption that because someone is "anti-establishment" that's a good reason to vote for them... That they're "different" from the GOP and Democratic candidates indicates they'd do a good job of governing the country... I don't get that.

Being "different" doesn't suggest anything other than that they have a different perspective. May be great, may be rotten, but being anti-establishment doesn't necessarily automatically mean "good".

a reply to: neo96

Neither one was the real thing.

Who is then? you? You think you could debate either one of those guys and stand a laughing chance in hell? I think they are passionate and believe in their ideals.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

bernie never had a big enough history to get past clinton.
ron paul is too right wing, like a old racist uncle everyone ignores at a party, whereas trump is a reality tv star and appeals to the uneducated and race haters.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I was a massive fan of both, yet to be for one you really should be against the other.

both are less likely to be seen lying on youtube, and one says college should be about bank notes, but

www.youtube.com...

The other one is too faggy to speak up so he got to be a chick's vp or something

So mostly policy didn't play a part, and it just comes down to who is less evil.

a reply to: wisvol

We can talk about voodoo in the other threads in which you ignored my questions.

a reply to: jtma508

I confess, I can't help but take a touch of offense from that. I didn't say that Millennials are the only ones online, but rather that they make up a sizable chunk of the online community as a whole. Personally I'm only just returning to ATS after a bit over a half decade of absence, and I didn't particularly get the feeling that the side was exclusively millennials, nor do I now. (Though I'll confess there does seem to have been somewhat of an overarching ideological shift of the community as a whole.) Still, sanders and Paul have rather different policies, and to quickly summarize their similar support I felt justified to speak in broad strokes. They both have had considerable support from millennials after all. Personally I believe that has more to do with how the generation is still forming its own political stances, but that's how youngsters are. ...and no, that doesn't mean that I believe that some haven't settled into a set political stance yet either. I'd swear backtracking through every statement so as not to offend any given group seems like quite the futile application of time for both myself and any non-offended readers of my post ay?

Still, your taking offense from my generalization excluding you wouldn't offend me. What does is that my maddened ramblings might be termed as "A typically ATS-simplistic analysis/assumption." Now, I confess, I've been away for some years and when I glanced in briefly around the start of primates I was quite disappointed with the sort of statements you seem to be referring to, but in my time on ATS I've seen plenty of well thought out, in many cases over-elaborately phrased notions suggested with more citation from reliable sources then a non;-conspirator might think. Moreover it gives me some modicum of fright and disparity to imagine that that's all I've to look forward to here these days. So, with respect (to your views which may be right as I returned less then a day ago), I choose to still hope otherwise.

originally posted by: MaddenedRambler
Largely because they're both anti-establishments.

You nailed it.

Many differences between the 2, but the most significant difference was the example Ron Paul pointed out about Sanders on several occasions:

When it came time to try to pass the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Ron Paul stuck to his guns and Bernie agreed to gut the bill to make it more establishment-friendly.

THAT'S the big difference!

a reply to: MaddenedRambler

Unfortunately ATS has devolved into large amounts of left/right mudslinging and personal attacks over the slightest hint of an opposing opinion. I've been guilty more than a few times.

Long gone are the meticulously cited epic threads. Though there some great ones a few times a week, but don't lose hope because quality posts and civility is greatly needed and we'll be looking forward to your contributions.

To really know and believe in what Ron Paul stood for, it would be completely illogical to then support Bernie Sanders. Talk about flip flopping. If you were Pro Paul then and Pro Sanders now, you have no room to complain about politicians flip flopping. You obviously just get all emotional and do not use your brain. That's what got us Obama.

a reply to: watchitburn

Well that's quite a shame... it used to condemn both parties harshly from a detached (3rd?) perspective.
In that case perhaps I was too harsh and defensive. Sorry if I was jtma508.

Gah. I'll readily confess that I didn't by any means live up to the standards of those epic thread spinners. Heh-he, in point of fact I actually recall being chased out of a thread once, or at least berated by a member thereof for my atrocious lack of citation, or when I then went and did a quickie, for my unfavorable choice of source. I confess, it only made me appreciate their stuff more.

To all else, I apologize for the extent to which I fear I may have derailed the thread.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
These guys are polar opposites.

Why did they both win the internet vote?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but both seemed to be the "answer".
I cant make sense of it.

Was it the anarchist vote?
Or maybe dumb idealistic kids?

I was a massive fan of both, yet to be for one you really should be against the other.

Has anyone else questioned their inconsistency over the two?

I believe that the further out you get the closer you get.

Even though Socialism, as Sanders defines it and Libertarian ism have a different path they both get us out of the Two Party, corrupt, Corporate Oligarchy System that we have now. Nobody likes what we have now, Older people like it because It's comfortable and they can overlook the corruption, but the younger generation doesn't have those sentimental ties. We all know we need something different. Radically different.

Exactly. "Those who think their free, are not actually free." The system will never change as long as majority of population continues to protect it.