Ron Paul

Ron Paul: A Popular Libertarian Candidate in 2020 Is 'Very Possible'

The former 1988 Libertarian nominee and 2008 and 2012 Republican candidate for president says Trump is just a temporary setback for the libertarian moment.

|

Gage Skidmore/flickr

Distrust in America's foreign and monetary policies, unrelieved by the election of Donald Trump, is going to be a "big opening" for libertarians in 2020, former Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul told the Washington Examiner.

Trump was able to co-opt much of the messaging of an establishment that has maintained a bipartisan consensus on these issues without offering much of substance to voters committed to the values of freedom.

"The appearance of the libertarian movement has been set back partially because of Trump, but intellectually we've been doing well," Paul said. "We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible" in 2020.

Paul called the economic upturn this year "a bit of an illusion," and said U.S. monetary policy benefits those connected to government, creating the most pernicious form of "inequality."

"It's a bubble economy in many, many different ways and it's going to come unglued," said Paul, who has previously blamed the Federal Reserve for what he sees as a bitcoin bubble.

"We're on the verge of something like what happened in '89 when the Soviet system just collapsed," Paul told the Examiner. "I'm just hoping our system comes apart as gracefully."

The Examiner noted that Paul doesn't think the U.S. will break up the way that the Soviet Union did, but rather that the U.S. will have to deal with its unsustainable foreign policy and the Fed-driven monetary policy that helps fuel it.

"I think our stature in the world and our empire will end, and that's when, hopefully, the doors will be open and [people will] say, 'Hey, maybe these libertarians have some answers to this'," Paul told the Examiner. "If they only hear our message, I know they would choose liberty and sound money and freedom and peace over the mess we have today."

Paul's criticism of Trump's foreign policy is understandable. Trump was never the non-interventionist some (at times even Paul's son, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul) made him out to be.

"I think the foreign policy is a total disaster," Paul told the Examiner."Trump's approach sounds good one day but the next day he's antagonizing everyone in the world and thinks we should start a war here and there."

Paul also said he'd be delighted if Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties, although he's not optimistic the replacement would be any better.

Read the rest of the interview at the Examiner.

NEXT: Congress Kicks Surveillance Debate into 2018

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible” in 2020.

    IF HE’S POPULAR HE WON’T BE LIBERTARIAN.

    1. “I, and other women, won’t vote libertarian because the children.”

      Source: my wife who is perhaps the most libertarian woman I have ever met.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

      2. Seriously? What does she think the libertarians are going to do? Eat them?

        It is women – primarily single women – who will destroy America (unless something else destroys it first). Women are more risk-averse than men – and desperately want “safety nets” for themselves and their children. For married women, that “safety net” is usually their husband, which is why married women tend to lean more conservative. But for single women, it’s all forms of government programs – child care, “free” medical care, welfare, housing assistance, special tax deductions.

        Research done by John Lott makes a powerful case that US debt is fueled primarily by the female vote. He looked at every state that granted women the vote – beginning with Wyoming in (IIRC) 1870. Over the next 50 years, every state that allowed women to vote began to run deficits year-over-year within a few years. No state that didn’t have voting women had that problem. With the passage of the 19th Amendment, all 48 states and the Federal government began to run year-over-year deficits. Now the Federal government carries, and adds to, a $20 trillion dollar debt each year.

        When one considers that the “War on Poverty” alone has cost $15 Trillion, it’s not hard to see how the female penchant for government programs will ultimately KILL THE CHILDREN.

        1. Well, to be fair, us men on average are more likely to support pointless wars (inspite of the risk of getting drafted to boot). So theres that.

          Besides economic issues, us men are more homophobic and want to tell gay men what they can’t do in the bedroom, because it makes **us** uncomfortable. But on the flip side, women are (by a few pts) more likely to oppose legalizing weed, more likely to support the “V-chip” (thanks Tipper Gore) and were the ones who started the whole prohibition thing.

          So I guess its a wash.

    2. “I, and other women, won’t vote libertarian because the children.”

      Source: my wife who is perhaps the most libertarian woman I have ever met.

      1. Both of them?

        1. The Prophet allows up to four.

    3. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Libertarian moments are like those moments about forty five minutes after eating Chinese food when you have an uncontrollable urge to take an explosive shit, and after you purge your bowels it is over.

  3. “We’re on the verge of something like what happened in ’89 when the Soviet system just collapsed,” Paul told the Examiner.

    I suppose nothing would be more libertarian than the unmolested rise of the oligarchs.

  4. As a left-libertarian, my top 3 2020 presidential candidates are Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. Unless Russia hacks that election too, I’m confident any one of them will beat Drumpf, or whoever is in office once Mueller concludes his investigation.

      1. Don’t fall for this second-rate troll, Ed.

        1. I think he’s quite funny, actually.

    1. As a 2000 foot tall fuscia smurf, I think you have no idea what you are.

    2. Elizabeth Warren? I can hear the Brer Republicans going “Oh please don’t nominate a shrill Ivy League 70 year old white woman who talks down to common people, Trump will lose to a candidate like that for sure”

      1. No way Trump gets the GOP nom in 2020.

        1. There’s no way he doesn’t.

          By 2020 every GOP hack will owe him something.

        2. I’m not a Trump fan, but the only way he doesn’t get the GOP nomination in 2020 is if he chooses not to run. No incumbent president has actually lost his party’s nomination for a second term since 1884 (Arthur) and he hadn’t actually been elected president in the first place (he was Garfield’s VP and became president after Garfield’s death). Only one president that was elected to the office in the first instance has lost the nomination for a second term — Pierce in 1856 — and that was when there was no real primary system at all.

          1. Trump is the most admired man in America who will be eligible to run in 2020, per Gallup.

          2. I don’t think its likely that Trump will lose the primary nomination for no other reason than all the other GOP candidates will just split the vote among themselves with Trump getting the plurality. Although head-to-head, he probably would have lost to several opponents, if not the majority of them.

            Now, if the “never Trumpers” had a “deal” where the losers of their subprimaries would **all** agree to drop out except for one after Iowa (or Iowa + FL) and have him/her run against Trump head-to-head (and hope no non-never-Trumpers still remain), I can see a scenario where Trump loses the primary.

            But then the voters will all say that it was rigged anyway, and a huge chunk of them will sit out or write Trump in the General. So the establishment will find a way to keep “the deal” from happening.

        3. Someone needs to visit the Dilbert blog predictions page…

      2. And of course he betrayed the protectionists completely, so he’s not winning WI, MI, or PA again even if he does get the nom.

        1. The first thing to consider is that he has three more years to get stuff for the Trumpism voters passed. Year One, policy-wise was heavily about bringing the Republican Party begrudgingly back together. That Trump is already back to talking infrastructure suggests that he’s going to try that (aimed toward his base) in 2018, especially as a way to energize them before November.

          Given all the stories we’re seeing of companies giving bonuses and raising wages off the tax cut, it could be interesting to see how he pivots (lumbers I gracefully around?) to a pro-worker focus using more conventionally GOP tools in the new year.

          On 2020, if anything, I can see Trump being more likely than other incumbents to have a primary challenge, but I could also see him having one from either side. Yet, I likewise see him beating that challenge a la Carter (whether that leaves him weakened for November a la Carter is another question; I can’t vouch for the sanity of the Democrats or what actual quality of candidate they’ll seek to field in 2020).

      3. Have we not all learned there’s no predicting what voters will warm to?

        1. Have we not all learned there’s no predicting what voters will warm to which portions of the populace will actually bother to vote?

          Any candidate can win, the trick is convincing your rivals’ voters that they shouldn’t bother playing.

          1. I think we have learned that black voters will turn out in droves for black candidates, but not for old white women.

            1. A sassy black woman would be able to get all the voters to turn out.

              1. + Medea

            2. They turned out for a white dude in Alabama. But maybe they just didn’t want to be represented by a child diddler.

    3. “As a left-libertarian, my top 3 presidential candidates are people who are in no way libertarian.”

      1. THATSTHEJOKE.gif

    4. And then – assassination.

      Count on it.

      1. BambiB has issued a public threat to commit first-degree murder. I have emailed the proof to her victim.

        And then – assassination.
        Count on it

        If you threaten ME, I’ll track you down and kill you … in the most painful way possible. Guaranteed.
        You psycho-conservatives are a disgrace.

  5. Oh good, I was just wondering what an 80-year-old Republican who has never come close to winning a national election thought about the electoral future of my party.

    1. We already had one candidate who died and never would have made it to election time. Ron Paul has a perfect voting record on energy, but he still wants the Political State for force women at gunpoint to have babies they do not want. Ulysses S. Grant signed the Comstock law (in crash/Depression year 1873), and Republicans have made this Mohammedan-style sumptuary law the basis and foundation for their race-suicide nationalsocialist policies. Enough is enough!

      1. On abortion, we simply need to reach agreement on when life begins. Whatever that point is, abortion thereafter is murder. Some say conception. Others say birth. I’m inclined to say it’s the point of independent viability. In most cases, that’s around 20 weeks (IIRC). Mostly the issue is one for rabid argument not based on fact. It’s one of the major red herrings of politics.

        1. The biggest bullsbhit of all — mostly the Christian Taliban.– that the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable Right to Life. DUH

          NO unalienable right can EVER be denied or disparaged … for ANY reason.

          Thus they’re ALL equal — Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others!!
          And the Ninth Amendment forbids government to deny or favor EITHER right.

          This demolishes BOTH extremes … conception and point of delivery — each fascists trying to impose their personal value over fundamental rights. AMAZING what we can achieve with the most obvious moral principles..

    2. So which libertarian has gained more votes or raised more money in a national election than Ron Paul?

  6. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties

    How has he been a disaster for civil liberties?

    1. He has been exactly like every other AG considered for the position over the last 12 years.

      So, I guess it depends on what baseline you use.

      1. I really wish Sessions would follow up on the findings in his “Immigration Fact Book”, basically slam the border shut, prosecute criminal invaders with the heaviest possible hand and slow processing of H-1B visas to 100 per month with NO renewals.

        If he did just those things, he’d be better than any attorney general in memory.

        1. What about the goddamn niggers?
          /sarc

    2. I wouldn’t say disaster more roadblock as AG to date but Ron might have been speaking about Sessions political career as a whole in which case disaster would be appropriate.

      Patriot Act supporter, against any reform for surveillance state, pro mandatory mins, pro drug war, pro civil asset forfeiture …

    3. Jeff Sessions rolled back some restrictions on civil forfeiture put in place by Obama’s Presidency (possibly even by Eric Holder).

      Frankly, as much as I distrust the socialist Democrats, I was pleasantly surprised that they had done that, and somewhat disappointed to learn about it by hearing about it being rolled back.

      1. Reading this thread, it is stunning … STUNNING … how many wingers are so totally ignorant of Sessions history and values. REJECTED AS A FEDERAL JUDGE FOR BEING TOO RACIST.

        So perfect for the Donald.

  7. Unlike the dishonest fugazi scumbag libertarians here at Reason who put a dagger in his back and shamefully smeared him as a “racist” when he needed their support the most, I will always have the utmost respect for Ron Paul.

    But…. I don’t agree with him in this case. It’s still very early, but after just one year Trump has already been one of the most libertarian presidents in my lifetime (which granted, isn’t saying very much and he’s by no means perfect). He just gave about 90% of working, taxpaying Americans a wonderful Christmas present with a real and substantial tax cut that takes effect in five days, has done more to eliminate federal regulations that any president in decades, and his judicial picks like Gorsuch and Willett have been absolutely outstanding.

    1. But Twitter!

      1. Would you have excused Obama if he had behaved as crass and deranged?

        1. Trump is hardly unique in this regard, as explained in this enlightening article that you won’t read because of the source.

          The Bigmouth Tradition of American Leadership

          The point is that it is hard to ascertain to what degree flamboyance and excess, even the self-destructive sorts, are integral to genius. And to what degree in extremis do we need to make allowances and exemptions for the former to allow expression of the latter?

          The state of affairs obviously determines the degree to which a public is willing to take risks with the unconventional. The peacetime army of the late 1930s would have had no real place for a General George S. Patton.

          We, of course, live in lesser times (though, we can cringe at the idea what Sherman or Truman, or Churchill, might have tweeted had Twitter been at their late-night fingertips).

          1. There is no excuse for Trump’s public behavior. Call me a conservative.

            Swearing in private is not his sin. And he tweets insanities in preschool English despite apparently being a nondrinker.

            1. I prefer to judge everyone by their actions instead of their words. Sticks and stones buttercup, suck it up

              He tweets I’m preschool English so folks like you can understand

        2. Sure, if he had also cut taxes, eliminated federal regulations, and picked people like Gorsuch and Willett for the courts. With a record like that, I’d even be somewhat willing to overlook the fact that he was a Democrat!

    2. I was just waiting for the Paulites to come out of the woodwork and say “on second thought, I actually do prefer Trump over Ron Paul”, thereby conclusively proving that they were actually Team Red Republicans all along.

      1. If he had a 60% approval rating that would be one thing. But we have to sit and witness Reason be a home of the Trump holdouts? With the whole rest of the internet out there?

        And it’s not like he’s just any Republican. He’s a particularly awful human being by any objective standard. Which makes their support all the more tribal, I suppose. They’d never let Obama get away with even an hour of Trump’s lies and crassness.

        1. Funny, considering that you seem to be the type that would hammer on Republican gaffs until the cows come home (along with everyone else) but conveniently ignore and excuse Democrat gaffs.

          I personally don’t like Trump, and I’m still not sure if I could bring myself to vote for him a second time around, but one thing I can see, is that he’s been better at slashing government than either Republicans *or* Democrats have been in the last few decades.

          Had Obama actually vetoed ObamaCare rather than sign it into law, cut other regulations, cut taxes, cut spending, and so forth, I would have been willing to give him a lot more slack than I gave him. The problem I have with Obama, though, is that he does things (such as clamp down on our freedoms) that I disagree with…whereas you seem to be convinced that the only reasons people opposed Obama was because he was a Democrat, and (gasp!) had dark skin!

        2. Come to think of it, aren’t you the fellow who equates the Heritage Foundation Health Care plan with the ObamaCare plan because it has exactly one thing in common — a requirement to buy health insurance — and who seems to think that, because a conservative think tank thought something up, conservatives and libertarians automatically have to support it, and because it’s identical (except for everything else) to ObamaCare, those people are therefore hypocrites?

          If so, and I’m pretty sure it *is* so, it is YOU who expects everyone else to play Team Politics, while everyone else evaluates everything based on what they think…

        3. The libertarians here don’t support Trump.

        4. “Objective standard”? Are you shitting me? There hasn’t been an “objective” report on Trump from the lamestream media since before he got the nomination!

          As for Obozo – if you want to see his REAL accomplishments, suggest you check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsWzfhvvOgg. Here’s a sampling:

          The number of non-farm hours worked each year has not changed since Obozo was elected – despite the fact that there are 20 million more Americans.

          15 million more Americans on Food Stamps? (up 39%)
          1 in 20 American home owners lost their homes under Obozo.
          As of 2016, 95 MILLION Americans were ready, willing, able to work – but no jobs!

          80% of American adults have struggled with joblessness under Obozo. EIGHTY PERCENT!!!

          But at least Obozo was good for race relations, right?
          In 2009 66% of Americans thought race relations were good, 22% thought they were bad.
          After 7 years under Obozo? 32% good. 63% bad!?? Where’s the press on THAT?

          Outright criminality in smuggling 2000+ assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to bump up the number of “American” guns used in Mexican crime (to justify more gun control). Then he pulled a “Nixon”: Executive privilege to prevent Holder’s testimony. Did the press call for impeachment?

          No. The POS got a free pass.

          Trump’s immigration limits are BASED on Obozo’s findings. When Obozo said it, all was fine. Trump? Now the same policy is “racist”.

          1. “Objective standard”? Are you shitting me? There hasn’t been an “objective” report on Trump from the lamestream media since before he got the nomination!

            ANY dipwad who uses “lamestream”” is a RAGING bigot … a snowflake whining about being objective
            Typical Trumpster

            Links to a YouTube video by (another) raging bigot … AS A RELIABLE SOURCE!
            While pissing and moaning about “objective” OMG! They walk among us!!!

            Trump’s immigration limits are BASED on Obozo’s findings.

            Even TRUMP says your full of crap on that..

            Are you sime maniac troll .. paid bny George Soros — to ridicule Trump supporters?
            Then again, Trump said you’d stand by him shooting somebody to death, in broad daylight, with witnesses! We don’t know about the murder … but you ALREADY stand by him calling you a dumbass goober, devoid of any moral standards.

            That COULD also explain your totally shameful lies here.

            Give Alex a hug while you’re “pleasuring” him orally.

      2. Unlike Dipshit Dave Weigel and the rest of Welchie Boy’s merry gang of fraudsters, I really wanted Paul to become president.

        I have to say, you sound like you’re as dishonest as shameless as they are.

        1. A FUCKING FASCIST PRESIDENT … TO IMPOSE YOUR SHAMEFUL BIGOTRY BY FORCE?

          The Ron Paul who lies about the 10th Amendment?

          Tried to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA, which would have made gays the first entire group denied constitutional rights since slavery.

          Like Trump, denies THREE co-equal branches, checks and balances, balance of power, and says we are defenseless against constitutional abuse by state government. (THE prime enabler of the alt-right that dominates this commentariat)

          A totally shameful opponent of equal, unalienable and.or God-given rights — claims states have the power of bigotry, explicitly denied them by the 9th Amendment. And the 14th (marriage equality)

          YOU are a threat to my life and liberty ….. reaches for AK-47

    3. If you listen to the lamestream media, you probably believe Trump IS Satan… and Hitlery won the election.

      My biggest beef with Trump so far is that he hasn’t implemented his agenda fast enough. I really had hoped (but not expected) that he would enter office with executive orders ready to go, and a solid legislative agenda. I would have howled in delight if he’d dropped his right hand after taking the oath of office, picked up a pen and signed an executive order repealing ALL executive orders of the Obozo administration. It didn’t happen – but one can dream.

      1. If you listen to the lamestream media, you probably believe Trump IS Satan… and Hitlery won the election

        FAKE NEWS (lol)
        “lamestream” and “hitlery’ =- raging hatred (f*cking scary)

        Brainwashed by Fox, Breitbart and Infowars to deny REALITY
        Why did 10 million vote AGAINST Trump?
        Why is Trump TWICE as disliked as ANY President, in all but 3 mionths – SINCE EISENHOWER?
        Why did only 37% of Republicans support his nomination?
        Why did his LOSING vote include a RECORD NUMBER OF ANTI-OPPONENT VOTES? (voted against Hillary, NOT for him)
        Why did he win the Electoral Vote by fewer than 80,000 votes in 3 states COMBINED?
        How much influence would Russia have needed to swing so tiny a margin?
        Why does Trump deny collusion, when the issue is CONSPIRACY — which his son confessed to.
        And OBSTRUCTION, which HE confessed to?
        Why do voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a massive 10% or more … PER FOX AND GINGRICH.
        Also Fox and Gingrich. Newt Gingrich: My fellow Republicans, a Democratic wave election is coming unless we act right now | Fox News
        Why are Trump’s snowflakes as eager to be brainwashed as Berniebots … and so totally contemptuous of “incon-veeeeeen-yent facts?

        *** WHEN THEY OFFER YOU THE KOOL-AID … DO NOT DRINK IT!

  8. Any political movement built around a philosophical viewpoint is doomed to failure. People aren’t loyal to philosophies, they’re loyal to other people.

    1. Our single spoiler electoral vote forced the legalization of abortion. The LP has made ku-klux prohibitionists back away from tarbrushing and coercing queers, and is now putting in place a sort of second 21st Amendment to stop the Feds from shooting more kids and robbing more parents over plant leaves. That is WINNING! Looter parties are in the business of getting government paychecks and buying votes so their boys can have jobs libertarians don’t even want. Our spoiler votes make them choose between coercive laws and getting fired. This is simple fractions, 9th grade arithmetic. Integrity is the friend of freedom.

    2. Rush Limbaugh and every other right wing radio hack might disagree.

    3. Actually, they’re mostly loyal to themselves.

      More than half of the population has, as their most pressing political question, “What’s in it for me?”

      1. Actually, 60% would self-define as libertarian — fiscally conservative and socially liberal
        So your lies and screwups on this page now total 38.

  9. Contributions must be slow.

  10. I can’t wait for Hihn to talk about Ron Paul.

    1. BULLY!

    2. Hihn is definitely gonna show up for this thread, probably sometime next year after the worms have finished picking over the bones, and he will shit all over the remains of the corpse. So let’s give him some material to gnaw on.

      1. Nah, he’ll be here in probably about 20 minutes, as soon as the early bird seating is over at Denny’s.

        1. Dead on.

          Death, taxes, and Hihn shitting all over a Ron Paul thread when it was just about to die.

  11. Just what we need… another mystical, superstitious, woman-bullying Bob Barr clone, endorsed by Alex Jones, whack job extraordinaire! Surely the Tea Party & Klan can come up with a better 5th-column infiltration vector to foist on us.

    1. I guess that’s an interesting question — if Ron Paul runs against Donald Trump, who does Jones endorse?

      1. Crazy Alex Jones will take Trump over Ron Paul ten out of ten times.

    2. Just what we need… another mystical, superstitious, woman-bullying Bob Barr clone, endorsed by Alex Jones, whack job extraordinaire! Surely the Tea Party & Klan can come up with a better 5th-column infiltration vector to foist on us.

      Alex Jones’s “libertarian” schtick has morphed to all Trump, all the time. It will continue to morph to keep his overpriced supplement / Infowars gear racket going.

  12. The foreign policy stuff is fair enough, but the Fed obsession is lizard people territory. Ron Paul will drop before he drops it, though, I suppose.

    I think libertarians should go all-in on criminal justice reform, purge the fucking Limbaugh bullshit, join functioning coalitions, and actually accomplish something in this world.

    1. I knew I could count on you to string a bunch of completely unrelated issues together and make them into some sort of sentence. Delicious. Thanks.

    2. Re: Tony,

      The foreign policy stuff is fair enough, but the Fed obsession is lizard people territory.

      Because money needs a central planner? Or what is the argument for the Fed, in your estimation? Leaving that aside, the Dems are not precisely Market-friendly, so the only coalitions possible between the L’s and the Dems is on, as you said it, criminal justice reform and perhaps immigration, and that last one only if the Dems stop playing Latin American immigrants for suckers.

      1. The Fed: because it works better than the obsolete fairy tale you’re selling.

        The Democrats are extremely market friendly. Every normal civilized country in the world has a market-based economy (with some degree of a public sector). You won. Capitalism won. Yay! Now just set aside your culty market worship bullshit that forces you to believe and espouse ridiculous things, and we can start taking about the world in a way that treats it as something resembling reality.

        If you’re a small political minority you either join a coalition or start behaving rudely in public to get attention. Knock yourself out either way.

  13. Ron Paul: A Popular Libertarian Candidate in 2020 Is ‘Very Possible’

    Popular, yes. Please!

    Not ‘Populist’. The ‘Populist’ candidates that have been inflicted on us so far range from an moldy old socialist to an economically incompetent p…y-grabber to a Southern pederast.

  14. Paul is right about the U.S.A. Because of irresponsible deficit spending the U.S. government will collapse relatively soon. Some states may secede even before a financial breakup occurs. It is just a matter of time. A financial catastrophe will stimulate secession by states that otherwise would not have seceded. Libertarians? I don’t think they have a prayer of taking power in the current structure. Democrats (who are really Fascists) and Republicans (who are really oligarchists) have the system sewed up tight.

    1. Democrats are a mundane center-left technocratic party as might be found slightly left- or right-of-center in every other civilized country on earth.

      The Republicans are, well I don’t even know what you call that shitshow anymore. Oligarchist yes, but also completely insane. Theocrazy? Klepto-mania? The 4th Reich: Electric Boogaloo?

      Let’s not allow the excesses of one affect our assessment of the other.

      1. Democrats are a mundane center-left technocratic party as might be found slightly left- or right-of-center in every other civilized country on earth.

        The Democrats are democratic socialists or further left by the standards of most civilized countries.

        The Republicans are, well I don’t even know what you call that shitshow anymore.

        For the most part, moderate Christian Democrats, as might be found in every other civilized country on earth.

  15. Lot of delusion from old Ron.

    Popular candidate? He must mean a candidate that has popular policies, and there could be no more popular policy among illegal immigrants (and large parts of the Democrat base) than the open borders mantra of many libertarians. Yet those types don’t seem to vote for libertarians, do they?

    I’m guessing when ICE raid illegal immigrant locales they don’t find stacks of well-thumbed Reasons, or witness the desperate burning and flushing of Libertarian Party pamphlets. There should be a lesson in that for Ron.

    1. Ron Paul ran a campaign ad in 2008 that featured attempted illegal immigration by swimming across a river. I don’t think he’s your enemy on this one.

  16. Why are these “Hope for Libertarian” stories always about the Presidency? For the love of country and effectiveness, focus on House and Senate races. Surely the Libertarian party can collude with Republicans on congressional races Republicans have little chance of winning, not run a Republican candidate and let a Libertarian unseat a Democrat (and vise versa)? We’re never gonna get a Libertarian president if we don’t at least have some positive examples of Libertarians in congress.

    1. I keep arguing that the LP needs to go after all those uncontesting city council and state assembly seats, leaning into either the “fiscal conservative” or “social permissive” (to use Gary terms) side of the platform as needed depending on who they’re running against, aiming at younger voters and those bored by the lack of choice. Get an interesting local candidate (perhaps a well-known local entrepreneur) and take a few less-competitive seats. That way, you have established officials who can run for a mayorship, state senate seat or the like. Spend a generation being recognized by casuals as an actual third party (think of the Lib Dems in the UK, being useful and sometimes necessary coalition partners while gaining dominance in certain local spots) before trying to be serious about congress, governships, or ever the presidency.

  17. Somebody put Ron back into his casket.

    1. *breaks out as a zombie*

      itshappening.gif

  18. Lemme gues. That candidate is your spawn Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)

    1. Rand Paul must be kicking himself over running in 2016 rather than being able to run in 2020, knowing all the ophthalmologist dad jokes he could have made on the trail about “20/20″…

  19. The former 1988 Libertarian nominee and 2008 and 2012 Republican candidate for president says Trump is just a temporary setback for the libertarian moment.

    A setback for “the libertarian moment“? Is Ron Paul trying to be funny here or is he really that out of it?

    1. What Trump proved is that there is no libertarian moment now or in the near future. Trump’s only problem is that he is 90 years too late to catch the Progressive’s “we need a strong leader” train. Americans aren’t looking for freedom, they’re looking for a savior.

      1. Trump’s only problem is that he is 90 years too late to catch the Progressive’s “we need a strong leader” train.

        Hillary ran as the “strong leader”, a progressive, and someone who would fix our problems through intelligent, strong leadership and lots of laws and regulations. What happened?

        Americans preferred an inarticulate, politically inexperienced, failed businessman because they wanted ACA repealed, wanted lower taxes, wanted less regulation, and wanted government out of their hair when it came to sex, sexual orientation, and race.

        The Progressive’s “we need a strong leader” train is run by the same people as it always has been: Democrats, progressives, and leftists. Republicans couldn’t produce a strong leader if they tried (and they tried).

        1. Hilary couldn’t come across as strong because she’s not. She rode her husband’s coattails and barely defeated an underfunded nobody for her Senate seat in a state whose Republican party is a joke.

          Few people voted for Trump because they wanted less regulation. They wanted to end immigration, stop companies from moving overseas and get even with “those people”, “those people” being anyone they disliked.

          This was an election about punishing your enemies and had nothing to do with issues. Hilary’s loser supporters screamed in the streets because the whips and chains that they expected to use on Republicans were now in the hands of their enemies. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were now serving the Dark Lord.

          Trump ‘s inarticulate, unending, self contradictory Tweetstorms was a Rorschach test where people saw their worst fears and greatest hopes. As president he is most like the “Magic 8-Ball” that gives random answers to questions. The weird part is that his purely random actions have been better than either of his predecessors who were consistently bad. Sometimes, although for no apparent reason, Trump does the right thing – Gorsuch, most court appointments and de-regulation.

          Trump has proven that a random number generator can be a better president than a “pragmatic” politician.

  20. Ron Paul is still a member of the “The Fed Makes All Bad Things Happen” club. The Bit Coin Bubble? Really?

    Is there anything that is not caused by the Fed? Could Bernie Madoff swindle people without the Fed pumping up the economy? I suppose that Panam, TWA and Eastern Airlines all went bankrupt because of the Fed? Did the Fed make the Red Sox trade Babe Ruth? I’m sure that RP can prove that the Fed’s easy money policies drove Ruth’s salary so high that to cut costs the Red Sox sold their best pitcher.

    Business regulation does far more damage than the Fed could ever do. In addition, regulation is a force multiplier for the Fed by restricting capital movements that attempt to ameliorate the damage done when the Fed unleashes it currency schemes.

    The biggest problem with “Austrians” is their single minded and simple minded explanation that the Fed is the ultimate evil. Getting rid of a central bank is a good idea but unless the regulatory state is rolled back the end of the Fed won’t be nearly enough.

    1. The biggest problem with “Austrians” is their single minded and simple minded explanation that the Fed is the ultimate evil.

      I can’t tell: are you simply a liar with a political agenda or are you really that ignorant of what Austrian economics means?

      1. He has no idea what Austrian Economics means:

        https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7074912

      2. No real Austrian economist seriously believes that a central bank is the ultimate cause of all economic problems. Rothbard’s work on the Great Depression makes it clear that recessions are normal but a central bank, in attempting to prevent a depression, exacerbates a bubble and turns a normal correction into a catastrophe. Rothbard understood why the Great Depression of 1920 never happened.

        Ron Paul, however, while claiming to be an “Austrian” assigns nearly all problems to the Fed. Compared to his constant Fed bashing how much energy did he spend on regulatory issues? As much as I like Ron Paul, (I was a Ron Paul delegate in 2012) he doesn’t appreciate the problems of regulation. Too many of RP’s supporters see the Fed as the Death Star and if you can blow up this planet destroyer then the Empire is defeated.

        The Fed is a terrible institution that causes untold grief for most people, but regulation makes it impossible to avoid the Fed’s policies and is therefore a worse threat. When people are free to move, the Fed can’t create another Great Depression.

  21. If the press and media refused to take Gary Johnson and Bill Weld seriously or give them any attention, there’s no way in hell any other libertarian is going to get any attention.

  22. What’s with the cocaine-infused comment section today?

  23. With all due respect to Ron Paul, out of the +-25% of positions that I don’t agree with the libertarians on, removing the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold standard has got to be one of the more retarded ideas.

    I mean seriously, do we really want to go back to the 1700 and 1800 hundreds, with peaks and “panics” constantly happening every 20 years. The gold standard has been proven to be a disaster. Funny how Bitcoin got thrown in this article, as thats exactly what would happen to our dollar if it were on the gold standard. Someone on Wall Street had a bad day, setting off a chain reaction, and poof, the dollar is down 25% over the weekend. Then its worth up 10% the next month. No thanks.

    Although I guess now I can see why Bitcoin has become the darling of the hardcore die-hard libertarians. If you support the gold standard, supporting Bitcoin makes sense. The constant speculation is a feature, not a bug.

    1. I mean seriously, do we really want to go back to the 1700 and 1800 hundreds…

      Non Sequitur.

      The gold standard has been proven to be a disaster.

      How much inflation has there been since the 1930s (when the gold standard was all but abandoned)?

      Funny how Bitcoin got thrown in this article, as thats exactly what would happen to our dollar if it were on the gold standard.

      Fluctuations in Bitcoin are (mostly) due to asset inflation (the panic from too much inflation and too low an interest rate – thanks Fed) and because the pool is still too small to be very stable.

      Someone on Wall Street had a bad day, setting off a chain reaction, and poof, the dollar is down 25% over the weekend.

      http://www.52insk.com/2016/soros/

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

      Yeah, non-gold backed fiat currency is actually a bad thing!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.