IVN News

Bernie Sanders will Steal the Ron Paulers – Here’s Why

Paid Advertisement

Remember those old days when Ron Paul came out of nowhere to raise over $4 million online in a single day … twice?

Well that was 8 years ago. Before the development of Instagram. When Twitter was still a little tweet. And when “online donations” was a foreign concept to most political consultants.

And although political consultants and commentators seem to now understand the power of the Internet, they haven’t quite grasped just WHY Ron Paul was so effective online.

Contrary to popular belief, Ron Paul’s first presidential campaign (the one that raised a lot more money than his campaign in 2012), was not very tech savvy.

Huhhh? You might say.

In reality, it was Ron Paul’s supporters who were the tech titans of the day. From Trevor Lyman, who worked on money bombs and raised enough to fly a blimp over stadiums, to Anthony Astolfi, who built the very first “Students for Ron Paul” website, to Michael Nystrom to Eric Nordstrom… these names never traveled to the big screen TV.

This video, created by eLiberty, was one of the first videos to popularize Ron Paul on YouTube.

And on that new video sharing platform called “YouTube,” eLIB3RTY jabbed at emotions while Aimee Allen belted out popular songs for the R3volution.

So what does this have to do with anything?

By 2012, Ron Paul went from being an extreme dark horse in the race for president to a viable candidate. And contrary to popular opinion again, he came relatively close to winning the nomination because he simply played the Republican delegate game better than anyone else — until the GOP establishment kept changing the rules on the perilous Paulites.

Now, in 2016, his son, Rand Paul (who was “drafted” to run for Senate by his father’s supporters), has more and more become a real part of mainstream politics. As a consequence, he has been more calculating and has less of an authentic anti-establishment ruse to the political passers-by.

So what’s that got to do with Ron Paulers and Bernie Sanders?

The thing that political consultants, journalists, and logic don’t seem to grasp is that Ron Paul did not have a fervent following because a bunch of young, tech-savvy folks believe lock-step in his libertarian philosophy. The fact of the matter is that most of them LOVED two things about Ron Paul: his authenticity and his anti-establishment appeal. He appeared to be the only candidate on the slate willing to run for the nation’s highest office without bowing down to the rules of today’s political game.

 

Is Bernie Sanders the Ron Paul of 2016?

 

Sure, there’s a lot of die-hard libertarians in the Paul camp. And there’s a lot of conspiracy-loving, Alex Jones-reading R3volutionaries who will follow you through the comment sections of the Internet. But there are a hell of a lot more people, especially young folks, who just want someone who stands for serious change.

They followed the hope of Barack Obama, and nothing changed. They are refusing to register with either political party, because nothing changes. And they are recognizing that politics is not really about the players like Rand Paul or Barack Obama … it’s about the game they are willing to play.

So in an era when more Americans identify as both socialist and libertarian, what are we to take from this? It’s not that they believe in the ideology — they believe in the alternate opportunity.

Bernie Sanders, an independent who joined the Democratic Party only to run for president, appears to be the only candidate today that will run for president without playing the game.

Photo Credit: Peter Yang

Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.

The Independent Voter Network is dedicated to providing political analysis, unfiltered news, and rational commentary in an effort to elevate the level of our public discourse.


Learn More About IVN

560 comments
TreyCato
TreyCato

I am a "ron pauler" & I will never vote for a man who is the total opposite of ron paul. Sanders is proof that if you speak with a gravely, authoritative voice and tell people what they want to hear, you can gain national attention. Only once every several decades does someone come along who is so cunning, manipulative and masterful at combining nationalism, authoritarianism, propaganda and hatred into one slick campaign. Not sure what is more amazing, how brilliantly he is executing this strategy while working to appear folky or how many people are falling for it. It's really stunning. Read some books about high level manipulation techniques and carefully analyze the lack of substance in what he says.

GirlyJoey
GirlyJoey

Many lolbertarians (people who are not very informed about the libertarian ideology) are not aware that libertarianism started as a...socialist movement in France in the late 19th century.  Bernie Sanders is a left leaning libertarian.  Anyone who's too ignorant to see that, is probably too uneducated about the true origins of libertarianism (wink, wink, Murray Rothbard and/or Milton Friedman are not the fathers of libertarianism).  

TreyCato
TreyCato

@GirlyJoey No libertarianism is by definition classically liberal. Its got nothing to do with france.

disturbed by events
disturbed by events

sanders is a confessed socialist...not sure how ANYONE could call ron paul one of those

PaulMason
PaulMason

@disturbed by events I'm sure Paul would welcome a healthy debate with Sanders on his economic theories. Of course Ron Paul's archaic opinions on gay marriage and abortion are irrelevant because they have already been discarded by the majority of Americans.


But Paul and Sanders agree 100% (and more than Paul agrees with any GOPer) on the following subjects.

1) Against Drone warfare

2) In favor of closing Guantanamo

3) Against NSA bulk collection, and  in favor of greatly reducing the no bid contracts to the defense contractors working for the NSA.

4) Punishing Bank Fraud

5) Removing corporate insiders from our regulatory agencies.

6) Diplomacy before war

7) Decriminalizing marijuana.

8) Holding the Saudis responsible for their role in funding Islamic Terrorism, ISIS and Al Qaeda.





bullington222
bullington222

You can compare Sanders and RON paul here: Sanders- http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Bernie_Sanders.htm RON Paul- http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm and if you want RON Paul or sanders to RAND Paul- http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm they are different... check the ideological charts at the bottom of each page. Rand is conforming more to the current Republican establishment.


Sanders and RON agree on more libertarian issues- drug and incarceration laws,death penalty foreign policy, military, gun rights, free trade, same sex marriage. 


Certainly there are many serious differences in their political views as well. But it should be clear to anyone serious about knowing their candidates the RAND is no RON.

Joe Cucchiara
Joe Cucchiara

@bullington222  All this Ron and Bernie stuff. Know this, they are both long time, died in the wool, good old boys, Republicans. For now it's a race for the nomination, after that, it's game on.  

bullington222
bullington222

So, in any case, this is another way they are alike. And they will have a similar legacy IMO. Left voters want bernie... but wont get him. Conservatives wanted Ron, and they didnt get him.

drmaddogs33
drmaddogs33

His Europeon Socialism doesn't appeal to me, but his abandoning Ron Paul on scrutinizing the Federal Reserve.. I cannot ignore. While the Debt Industry has quite a high bit of fiat control in the E.U., as in America- 20% of GDP, I see Sanders allowing the Fed to remain the same, no transparency as to simply protecting the Banks, first, foremost and always.. meaning they will always be bailed out, we will always have ever larger Banking collapses, interbank debt will continue to pile up.

Joe Cucchiara
Joe Cucchiara

@drmaddogs33  If we learned anything, it was that these sleezie bankers need to be watched and regulated. And some should go to jail. Back in the day, S&Ls and Commercial banks were two separate forms of Banking and they were much easier to regulate and keep honest. The merger was the means to steal our money. We need more regulation and some close inspection. If Sanders doesn't see that, he is should drink the cool aid! 

Lloyd Grant
Lloyd Grant

Bernie Sanders is one of the best examples of leadership to come on to the American political scene in decades. He is currently campaigning for the office of President and doing so for America and for all Americans; But one thing you can rest assured of that BernieSanders is Not FOR and that is, he is Not for sale. Which of the other candidates can claim that ?

ChristopherTancrede
ChristopherTancrede

@Lloyd Grant Nice copy and paste.  If he's a socialist, then I'm really not interested.  I'd say that a number of the people currently running aren't for sale. One person I'd point out is Rand Paul.  He's a very principled person who makes it a point to return any money that is left over in his coffers at the end of the year.  Does Bernie do that?  If so, I haven't heard about it.


Joe Cucchiara
Joe Cucchiara

Your talking Red and Blue and they don't mix!

RyanS88
RyanS88

Sanders is a psychopathic socialist. Matter is to Anti-Matter as Ron Paul is to Sanders. They are complete polar opposites. You would have to be economically retarded to somehow support Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. It's like supporting gay marriage while picketing along with Westboro Baptist Church. Sanders would increase taxes, increase spending, increase regulations. Bigger government, more control. They would agree on nothing besides social issues like legalization and gay marriage. 

Joe Cucchiara
Joe Cucchiara

I'm tired of the lying, the mud slinging,  the false accusations, and every other game they try to keep us from getting any pertinent info on where they stand on anything.The supreme court has f#@ked up our election laws. These people are supposed to defend and relate the pure  meanings of our Constitution not rewrite it to their personal and Political beliefs! I thought only 3rd world countries constitutions were written in pencil!  
Until now, Rand Paul is first in my line.

Stephen Landry
Stephen Landry

have you looked at their take home after taxes? how about average home square footage, etc. Quality of life is NOT better....not by miles.

TomMallon1
TomMallon1

Of the two, Ron Paul has considerably more credibility and integrity. He has almost always stuck to his guns. 


By comparison, Sanders has voted with Democrats 98% of the time (Source: Howard Dean), accepted HillPAC money from Clinton ($10K in 2006), has continually voted for war appropriations in Iraq and Afghanistan (including the F-45 Strike Fighter Program), has repeatedly supported Israel in its Gaza campaign (AIPAC funding, and Res. HR4631 as well as Res 921 supporting an Israeli war against Lebanon), opposed Nader, the Green Party and his own state's (Vermont) Progressive Party, voted in favor of Clinton's Kosovo War (1994), didn't want to withdraw troops from Iraq after originally voting against the invasion, and even endorsed the dumping of nuclear waste along the Texas/Mexican border. 


Nevertheless, Sanders is constantly appears in passionate speech photos quoting left/liberal catch-phrased which continue to be diametrically opposed to his own congressional voting record and public actions. 


Consequently, Paul strikes me as the closest thing we have gotten to Eugene McCarthy in my lifetime, while Sanders seems to accurately portray the political practices of Hubert Humphrey. You remember, the guy who didn't campaign yet managed to steal McCarthy's nomination at the Democratic nomination in 1968. Ironically, the man's initials just happen to be "BS". 

Scott Call
Scott Call

I like Ron Paul because he wants to audit the Fed and Bernie Sanders because he opposes the TPP and supports GMO labelling. Both are opposed to the status quo political establishment.

FinalMyth
FinalMyth

He doesn't support GMO labelling..

Amy Beaman
Amy Beaman

I just can't get past your hate speech. If you're going to advocate for something you should at the very least have some basic reasoning skills. I'm sure your very proud of all the ten dollar words you've learned but when you use them inappropriately it muddles the discussion and makes your wiring very disjointed. I'm sure you do that so you sound educated but honestly is horrendous. Since I wasn't getting anywhere with you I looked it up myself. I found this site and it sort off resembles what I think you've been trying to say. http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism Is this what you're advocating?

YeahYeahAlright
YeahYeahAlright

Oh, one more thing. Bernie Sanders feels like a forced attempt to display any opposition to Hillary to make it seem less Oligarchal if you will.

I learned of Ron Paul from word of mouth. He was more in the back of the bus whereas Sanders is in the passenger side... of his best friends ride... trying to holla... you get it.

YeahYeahAlright
YeahYeahAlright

Nope. Fun idea, but nope. We're not electing Principal McVicker.


I feel I speak for most of the people my age who went from a generic liberal to libertarians because of Ron Paul when I say that we chose him because he was honest AND made sense. The great thing about him was that he had these wildly unpopular ideas 10 and 20 years ago, and he was vindicated.

Bernie Sanders just holds your generic socialist positions, which IS what matters, and is outspoken.

John Meier
John Meier

Everyone should be a Libertarian now,,, The repubs and dems can't be trusted,,,, At least Libertarians believe in no government..

Amy Beaman
Amy Beaman

I don't hate you. I don't really know you, how can I hate you? I think you're very confused. There's a difference between that and hate. You have no evidence, no proof at all that socialism can produce anything. Instead of saying oh no here's where there was socialism and it produced or invented x, you just keep saying the same thing almost like it's a mantra for you. You claim I don't understand socialism and yet you offer no explanation of how all these great things occur under it. How does socialism protect private property? Define what you mean by private property. How does it encourage innovation? How does it protect the individual from theft or abuse? What are the mechanisms for the market that show what needs to be produced and how much needs to be produced? How do the makers of things know what people want? How does socialism provide for the different learning styles of our children in educating them? Come on man quit with your babble and get down to the nitty gritty. Explain how we prevent corruption of the system? Who is the collector that redistributes what I produce to someone who wants or needs it? Who is making the decision of what is surplus? Who decides what the living standard should be for all of us? What do we do with people who refuse to contribute? What do we do with people who take more than their fair share? Who decides what a fair share is? How do we accommodate the different needs of didn't people? The only reason there are people who have these wild concentrations of wealth today is because of the manipulation in the market. Government regulations protect those businesses by protecting them from competition. The government we have today has to much power, to much authority. And now you want me to believe that giving them more is great and will lead to great things? That's insanity!

Amy Beaman
Amy Beaman

Now I'm sure you're on some serious drugs. Our Constitution did not set up a socialist Republic. No where in the constitution does it say that all wealth, property or labor should belong to the state. Nor does it set out circumstances for a redistribution of said wealth. As a matter of fact it lays out rules that define and protect private property. The fact that the constitution expressly states that we own ourselves and our property makes your claim riduculous. Socialism fails because it is not grounded in reality and it has no mechanism to prevent abuse. Just look at all the corruption no place is immune, from churches to doctors to governments absolute power corrupts. This is part of human nature. You can't just pretend that away. Don't be so consumed with what everyone has that you miss the chance to make your own. That envy robs you of the desire to become more than you are. You don't want to live in a commune because you would have to look into eyes of the child your stealing food from. You would know the people whose life blood you would be sucking away. It is you who betrays not only the constitution but also those that you "love" (if it's possible for someone with so much envy, hate and jealousy to love). You call freedom pure idiocy, you hate capitolist so much yet here you are on a network designed by capitalist, on a computer or smart phone designed by capitalist using Internet also designed and mantained by capitalist. Unless you grow or raise all or most of your own food that too is provided by a capitalist. How is it that something so evil has provided you with so much? What has socialism provided the world with except mass murder and force? If capitalism is so evil then why our how have the poorest among us improved their living standards? Are you arguing that our living standards are not vastly improved over the last 20, 50, 100 or 200+ years? Is it perfect? No its not perfect. We need more freedom. We need the freedom to trade with each other without government interference. People need to be able to use their skills to create their own wealth without having to pay the government for the privilege. You're the one who is a coward. I'm not advocating for a government to put a gun to your head on my behalf, that's what you want.

Lloyd Grant
Lloyd Grant

Anyone that lives in a Society, is, like it or not, a Socialist. Anyone that wants to be a hermit free of government interference can still disappear into the vast wildernesses that still exist in this Country. The puerile notion that a society can exist free of government intervention tends to overlook the fact anarchy is a proven failure. Alas, we do seem to exist in an imperfect world. I for one, would be loathe to entrust the safety of the food I eat, the environment that I live in, the medical care and prescription drugs, and other critical criteria to the altruistic beneficent care of people whose sole purpose in life is to accrue vast tax free fortunes. So, if you are of the mind that progressive thinking has no place in society, please do the majority of us a big favor and turn in your voters registration, or better yet, burn it. If you don't want to be part of the solution to the mess we're all in, then for gods sake shut up and get out of the way.

Amy, the only language these kind of people speak is what they have been brain washed into accepting. All they have in their stunted intellectual arsenals are falsehoods, invective, and xenophobia. Trying to reason with them is a study in futility.

L. Grant

SamMcCrory
SamMcCrory

This has to be a joke. No one except a feminist could be this ridiculously idiotic.

Jerry54
Jerry54

@SamMcCrory This is what happens when you comment without reading. You don't make sense.

Amy Beaman
Amy Beaman

You ignore all of history where socialism has failed. You ignore the violence and murder that has occurred under your form of government. You claim that freedom exploits the individual and yet in your system there is no individual there is only the collective. At least with freedom you're free to choose to live in a commune if you like and I don't have to.

Amy Beaman
Amy Beaman

You support slavery. I do not. You think government force and violence are an acceptable way of arranging society. I do not. I believe people should be able live in any manner they choose as long as there is no aggression or force against another. I believe freedom for everyone raises the most boats while you prefer everyone drown together. I believe in free trade. You believe in coercion. I believe in abundance, you believe in scarcity.

Amy Beaman
Amy Beaman

When you can't win with logic and reason you resort to name calling. You have no idea who I am or where I come from, but none of that matters to you. I'm sure your conscience is very clear since you don't have to do the dirty work of stealing from me directly. You just send your government goons in to try and take whatever you feel entitled to. Hhhmmm guess socialism was cool until you had to move to Cuba to get it. ..lmao

Jerry Rehanek
Jerry Rehanek

NO NO Just too lazy or stupid to read ,learn and make an educated decision…TEA PARTY!

AdamNon
AdamNon

I don't know about "steal" ... I think given the about-face contradictions and peculiarities of "RAND" there's no other candidate.

As an outsider, looking at the USA, I can only hope the voters finally do themselves the favor of not hiring another employee of the Banks and global corporations and billionaires.

Sanders is an intelligent person with the experience, knowledge and capacity to refuse to do the bidding of the oligarchs.  He might also be able to put an end to the war-always-war policy of the USA emptying its budget into the profits of military and energy industry corporations.

Maybe the USA can spend the next presidential cycle building schools and roads and hospitals and first world infrastructure in its own country, instead of squandering resources on "aid" projects that end up achieving nothing.

Maybe the USA voter will finally have 20/20 vision in 2020 and elect a real public official as POTUS -- someone focused on serving the needs of the country, not the empire-building that has caused such suffering during the Obama and Bush years.

Amy Beaman
Amy Beaman

First these are the logical conclusions to your reasoning. Talking to you is like talking to a small child who doesn't understand that stealing is wrong. In your world view exactly who would decide how to ration our natural resources? Who would decide how much of my production is excess? Why would I bother to produce anything at all if I have no ownership of it, if on a whim your socialist government can step in and take everything I've built as excess? Saying government should be allowed to take everything from everyone so it can be equally redistributed is like saying hey we can't all have health so let's poison everyone so that we are all sick. I am not drawing conclusions about socialism from our crony capitalist better known as fascist state. I draw my conclusions about socialism from other failed socialist States. It's easy to look and see how corrupt government can be when given absolute power over what a person produces. Stalin, Hitler and Moa all socialist all mass murders. Look at Cuba they have a socialist government and they live stuck in the 1960's with little to no innovation. Does that situation exist because no one has extra to play and be creative with or is it because in order to maintain the socialist regime the people must be strictly controlled, forced to stay in the roll government decided for them. Maybe it's because the people aren't free to leave? Who knows, what I do know is I wouldn't want to live there would you? There's nothing revolutionary about socialism, it's been tried and it has failed. It is not sustainable on a large scale with people from diverse backgrounds. Oh thats right in your world there would be no diversity. We would all be the same except ofcourse our rulers, who would have to carve out more themselves. If you really want socialism why don't you go to where it already exists? Why force yourself on those who wish to live free?

aligatorhardt
aligatorhardt

Most commenters are so lost in their own imagination, influenced by stupid stereotypes from TV talking heads, that they are shouting at shadows, oblivious to the world that surrounds them. Can these people recognize reality at all? How about evaluating the proposals of a candidate instead of just making up all the details in a dream? Stereotypes are designed for hiding the facts, or for ignoring the facts, creating fantasy characters that have only simple predictive traits, unlike actual people who can consider more than one possibility, and make choices for each issue based on the merits of the case. The fact that some dictator in the past called themselves "socialist" means nothing at a different time and place under different circumstances. When talking about the dumbing down of America, this is exactly the kind of simple mindedness that is the problem, and why voters vote against their own interests and install dictators instead of representatives. Stereotypes are for lazy Hollywood producers to pick one dimensional characters for fantasy, real people have the ability to be rational, except when they are too lazy to exercise their own mind.

aligatorhardt
aligatorhardt

Ron Paul gets a couple issues right, but then on others he seems a bit nuts. Sanders impresses on any subject.

Amy Beaman
Amy Beaman

So your saying that the earth belongs to all of us and since the Earth belongs to all of us no one has the right to profit off any part of it? You assign no value to the means of production? You think there is no value created beyond the resource that was taken from the earth when someone takes those basic resources and transforms them into something completely different? For instance if I take a seed and spend the time effort and energy to plant the seed, care for the plant and harvest the fruit there is no value in my efforts? If I want to trade that fruit for something that someone else created I'm rent seeking? I have stolen from the common treasury? I have no right to a return on the investment of my capitol? In this example my capitol is my time, my effort, my energy, and my knowledge. This capital is not of the common treasury it is mine. By your standard we would all be forced into slavery. Each one of us forced to produce for someone else. Where would innovation come from? What would encourage that? Maybe you're referring to money as capitol. You would be wrong. Money is nothing more than means of accounting. Without which each person would have to walk around looking for the person who produces a good I might need or want that is willing to trade for what I have. The capital is always the effort, energy and knowledge used in procuring and producing an item. I don't bow down to it but I realize that, like gravity it is a part of the world we live in. It's honest to recognize the efforts of another person. Pretending that you are entitled to the efforts of another person without compensation is dishonest and wrong. Our current government provides no service yet it steals from the producers, the workers and those that labor to provide a good or service to another. In its current form it creates barriers to production by the many and instead favors the few who use that privilege to exploit the efforts of workers and producers.

SamMcCrory
SamMcCrory

@nazani14 @jojokejohn @ivn Empathy for the poor is about the only thing Sanders and Libertarians have in common.

Daniel Stetson
Daniel Stetson

Calling names in your first sentence,great way to make people listen. Government will always grow large,if it starts large it will be much harder to stop when it turns on it's people(government never kills it's people...sarcasm). All the stuff you claim we will receive from socialism will be nice for a year or two until our president or dictator decides to make rules for our protection or for the children and decides for us what we need verse what we want. Power corrupts. Socialism is a great idea like anarchy but neither are sustainable.

aligatorhardt
aligatorhardt

Instead of creating straw men in your imagination, how about considering what is actually proposed? You are shouting at stereotypes.

Karen Reaves
Karen Reaves

No he won't!!! His loyalty is to Israel!!!!