Wow Ron Paul Drops A TRUTHBOMB About Donald Trump And Hillary!!
It looks like famed libertarian hero and perennial presidential candidate Ron Paul is no big fan of Donald Trump.
That’s why he said this on CNN about him:
Wow.
Ron Paul had the same anti-establishment sentiment that Trump seems to be capitalizing on, but his libertarian ideology must recoil at the big government solutions the Donald puts forth.
Trump wants to expand Medicare, and he doesn’t detail at all how he would bring down the debt, or decrease the size of government. And he’s given out many signs that he would vastly increase the power of the executive at the expense of the Constitutional checks and balances ideal.
And it really seems like Trump’s rabid following bears many similarities to those that followed Ron Paul – will they listen to the libertarian superstar of yesteryear?
What do you think? Is Ron Paul right to say that Trump isn’t ideologically any different from Hillary Clinton? Let us know in the comments section below!!
The popularity of Trump has nothing to do with libertarianism. It's instead due to anti-establishment politics, and that's what separates Trump from all the others. Trump represents an end to cronyism at the highest level. Any hope of Trump instituting libertarian policies would lie in obliterating special interests groups and exposing a lot of skeletons that have been accumulating, and thereby making sure everyone the same from garbage man to CEO exec.
That is a long shot, but it seems people are more interested in ending political corruption than they are about civil liberties. At least right now.
And of course, no one likely to win the election is offering a restoration of civil liberties, so and end to corruption is the next best thing anyway.
Of course Ron Paul would not endorse Trump, nor should he. Ron Paul represents ideals that Trump is not espousing.
it seems people are more interested in ending political corruption than they are about civil liberties.
I see them as one and the same. Humans are basically apes, and will always try to out chimp one another. Government subsidies upset the natural order, promoting the weak at the expense of the strong.
Government subsidies upset the natural order, promoting the weak at the expense of the strong.
Are you talking about my disability pay? I hope not. I've worked hard over the years to qualify for that. I don't see it, though. My payee does, and I am not happy with her performance at all. I think I may fire her and take over my own affairs once again. ;)
Are you talking about my disability pay? I hope not. I've worked hard over the years to qualify for that.
Not trying to pry, but did you have LTD insurance while you were working?
I'm not a completely heartless bastard, I believe there should be a safety net in society, and private, capitalist insurance programs serve that function well for functioning members of society. I'd be the first one swinging a baseball bat at a repo-man trying to get back a wheelchair by force, but fortunately for me these situations come up so rarely in life.
Assuming a 20 year lifespan of this argument, $2300 a month for a retired couple in Scottsdale will cost one hell of a lot less, long term, than $600 a month for a single parent household of any number in Gary. This is what had me riled, not Social Security or actual legitimate spending by government such as defense, but I suspect even war is mostly the same people putting other people up to it. Government should take care of the needs of the most, private charity should fill in the individual cases, this guarantees a better outcome by letting benefactors decide who is worthy of an extra friend.
I'd be the first one swinging a baseball bat at a repo-man trying to get back a wheelchair by force
I know what you mean; the world is full of cruel and heartless people. But instead of taking a baseball bat to the guy, I would pay for the disabled guy's wheelchair if I could. The repo man has a family to feed. And if nobody paid for wheelchairs, then nobody would want to manufacture them.
Government should take care of the needs of the most, private charity should fill in the individual cases
Government should take care of the needs of the most, private charity should fill in the individual cases
What do you mean by that?
Mainly that government has little to no incentive to actually help the truly needy overcome their predicaments. In fact, it has an incentive to keep them dependent, it serves to justify to the public at large ever expanding programs and reach into their personal lives (social workers, etc). If government were limited to it's proper role of protecting individual rights and property, much of the dysfunction that plagues the (now) permanent underclass would work itself out, either through the works of those with incentives to actually help, or through sheer, brutal Darwinism.