Debunking the “Well at least Ron Paul is better than Obama” argument
When the left criticizes Ron paul or libertarianism in general, many libertarians pull the “Well Obama is EVEN worse” argument. Here’s one example I saw just now.
They set up this false dichotomy where you can’t hate both Ron Paul and Obama at the same time. If you criticize Ron Paul, you’re a statist Obamabot or some shit like that.
Fuck that. That argument makes absolutely NO fucking sense. Ron Paul sucks dick. Libertarianism sucks dick. Obama sucks dick. Liberals suck dick.
It’s possible to hate them all.
I shouldn’t even have to post about this. It seems mind numbingly obvious. But apparently not.
hey look, it’s what i have been trying to say for an entire calendar year.
you don’t have to choose between obama and ron paul. you don’t have to choose between the GOP and the democratic party. you don’t have to choose a party that exists at all.
every time i’ve taken the time to lay out arguments against libertarianism, i’m criticized for loving obama. which i don’t. as a president, i really think he’s useless. as a human being, he seems like a nice dude. but i don’t care if he’s a nice dude, because his presidency is a total brainwashing sham. just because you identify as someone who is politically liberal does not mean you’re required to support obama or his presidency.
likewise, every time i’ve taken the time to discuss why i don’t think obama is the second coming, i’m berated by people who normally agree with me. ‘oh, i didn’t know you were a tea partier now.’ right. because not thinking obama is amazing automatically makes me a far-right eccentric.
