How is Ron Paul not gaining ground?

[nikki2200 4]

"The media" is like a couple thousand organizations, it doesn't have a central voice. You're going to have to back that up with a link (and a name).

 

I'm not sure about the "media" as a whole, but it is readily apparent that Fox News along with other conservative media figureheads, such as Limbaugh and Hannity, are basically doing whatever they can to make Ron Paul nothing more than an also-ran. Any air time they give him, which is very little, they try to marginalize him and make him look cuckoo.

 

Which may be why some people are saying he's crazy. That's how he's being portrayed.

[nikki2200 4]

Which comes back to the media, they understand this as well. If the media didn't love BHO he would never have become president.

 

BHO made a good story. Someone like Ron Paul doesn't make good headlines.

[hoytdwow 202]

I'm not sure about the "media" as a whole, but it is readily apparent that Fox News along with other conservative media figureheads, such as Limbaugh and Hannity, are basically doing whatever they can to make Ron Paul nothing more than an also-ran. Any air time they give him, which is very little, they try to marginalize him and make him look cuckoo.

 

Which may be why some people are saying he's crazy. That's how he's being portrayed.

 

I have a gruding admiration for Paul, but I also think he's crazy for believing in things like the "NAFTA Superhighway" and for saying he would end all foreign aid, and delete most of the federal government.

[nikki2200 4]

I have a gruding admiration for Paul, but I also think he's crazy for believing in things like the "NAFTA Superhighway" and for saying he would end all foreign aid, and delete most of the federal government.

 

I'm not sure about the NAFTA Superhighway stuff and I don't know what he said about it.

 

On the other two... Shouldn't we get our own house in order before we hand out money to other countries? Our economy is flailing and we are in debt up to our eyeballs. Why is it our responsibility to provide money to the rest of the world? It's like if your own roof is collapsing and you have credit card debt that has you on the verge of bankruptcy, and you continually go to your neighbor's house and fix their roof and pay off their credit card bills. That makes no sense. I suppose you can say if your neighbor loses their house and goes bankrupt, they may come over and try to take your house and kill you. I suppose. But meanwhile you are now homeless and can't eat because you were more afraid of your neighbor than your own house falling down. I guess I'm not a backer of the concept that the US has to be the world's police force and financier. And I think that it actually creates a lot of the international distaste for the US.

 

And his deleting most of the federal government is extreme, and it completely goes against the fiber of what we are accustomed to, but isn't the government the problem? The federal government has a very specific role to ensure the safety of it's citizens and their property, ensure that the national infrastructure supports commerce, and uphold the Constitution. It has grown into this self-propagating monster that can't get out of it's own way. We pour billions of dollars down the toilet every year, that probably has a $80,000 toilet seat on it, to keep feeding the monster that gets very little done except create more need for itself.

[Little Rusty 17]

BHO made a good story. Someone like Ron Paul doesn't make good headlines.

 

only for the mindless twits

[Phurfur 70]

BHO made a good story. Someone like Ron Paul doesn't make good headlines.

 

Correct. The media is by far the biggest joke in this country, even the sports media follows this MO.

[Vikings4ever 496]

for saying he would end all foreign aid

Borrowing money so that we can give it away ISN'T crazy?

[Phurfur 70]

for saying he would end all foreign aid, and delete most of the federal government.

 

 

What is wrong with that!

 

Do we really need the federal government to be the #1 employer in the country and to control 40% of our economy? The morons in DC have been fighting all year about cutting $1.4 trillion over ten years when we are running a yearly deficit of $1.6 Trillion. The joke of the whole think is that they haven't passed a budget in almost 3 years.

 

Let me repeat, the largest employer in the USA has not passed a budget in almost 3 years! Why isn't the media all over this?

[hoytdwow 202]

I'm not sure about the NAFTA Superhighway stuff and I don't know what he said about it.

 

google it. It's kooky.

 

On the other two... Shouldn't we get our own house in order before we hand out money to other countries? Our economy is flailing and we are in debt up to our eyeballs. Why is it our responsibility to provide money to the rest of the world?

 

I think the U.S. gives out too much in foreign aid, and some countries, like Pakistan, should be held to fire in order to get it, but saying you would end all of it is pretty extreme....if we don't support some of these nations, then China will. That would be bad and very irresponsible.

 

And his deleting most of the federal government is extreme, and it completely goes against the fiber of what we are accustomed to, but isn't the government the problem? The federal government has a very specific role to ensure the safety of it's citizens and their property, ensure that the national infrastructure supports commerce, and uphold the Constitution. It has grown into this self-propagating monster that can't get out of it's own way. We pour billions of dollars down the toilet every year, that probably has a $80,000 toilet seat on it, to keep feeding the monster that gets very little done except create more need for itself.

 

I just don't believe in letting the states decide how to do everything. And I absolutely reject the idea of letting industries regulate themselves. Plus, as president, he wouldn't have the authority to do get rid off all these agencies anyway.

 

Like I said, I admire him. But he is just too extreme on some of this stuff. He deals in absolutes, and you can't govern that way.

[CantTouchThis 23]

(in regard to the original question).....because only 12-15% of the citizens in this country are capable of critical thinking

[DanXIII 8]

He deals in absolutes, and you can't govern that way.

 

I think this nails why I ultimately can't support him, though I probably agree with him as much as I disagree with him on various issues.

[Phurfur 70]

 

if we don't support some of these nations, then China will. That would be bad and very irresponsible.

 

 

Good! Then they can hate the Chineese as much as they hate Ameicans.

 

 

Since 1990 and before the earthquake we had pumped billions of dollars into Haiti and it is still the poorest country in the hemisphere. That is billions of dollars to a country of 10 million people. Where do you think that money went? It went from our corrupt leaders to their corrupt leaders.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

Since 1990 and before the earthquake we had pumped billions of dollars into Haiti and it is still the poorest country in the hemisphere. That is billions of dollars to a country of 10 million people. Where do you think that money went? It went from our corrupt leaders to their corrupt leaders.

 

I believe you. But I said we give too much in aid and that nations should be made to answer for it if they get it. I don't support the current system of foreign aid. But you can't just end it all, click, just like that. It's a terrible idea.

[Phurfur 70]

I believe you. But I said we give too much in aid and that nations should be made to answer for it if they get it. I don't support the current system of foreign aid. But you can't just end it all, click, just like that. It's a terrible idea.

 

I didn't hear him say click, just like that. The corrupt congress and senate wouldn't let him do it anyway. I would love to have a President that will call out all coruption and waste in Washington. I think that was what many people thought they were getting with BHO.

[hoytdwow 202]

I didn't hear him say click, just like that. The corrupt congress and senate wouldn't let him do it anyway. I would love to have a President that will call out all coruption and waste in Washington. I think that was what many people thought they were getting with BHO.

 

he said in the last debate that he would end all foreign aid. Not that he would revise the system or make nations who receive it accountable; that he would end it.

 

He says he would do a lot of things that the President has no authority to do, which is kind of ironic since he such a warrior for the Constitution and all.

[nikki2200 4]

I didn't hear him say click, just like that. The corrupt congress and senate wouldn't let him do it anyway. I would love to have a President that will call out all coruption and waste in Washington. I think that was what many people thought they were getting with BHO.

 

[Little Rusty 17]

(in regard to the original question).....because only 12-15% of the citizens in this country are capable of critical thinking

 

This ...

[Voltaire 4,572]

Ignorance is bliss!

 

Please name those thousands of organizations.

 

Did you ever hear of Gannett.

So Gannett announced it would not cover Ron Paul's campaign? You never provided a link to support that.

 

Anyways, somebody should tell Gannett's main paper, USA Today because this is less than a week old:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-27/ron-paul-budget-plan/50963452/1

 

The fact is that editors and columnists have a lot of freedom in who and what they cover and report on, some boss high up in the hierarchy beyond the paper's publisher and/or editor isn't going micromanage the papers like you claim.

[Phurfur 70]

So Gannett announced it would not cover Ron Paul's campaign? You never provided a link to support that.

 

Anyways, somebody should tell Gannett's main paper, USA Today because this is less than a week old:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-27/ron-paul-budget-plan/50963452/1

 

The fact is that editors and columnists have a lot of freedom in who and what they cover and report on, some boss high up in the hierarchy beyond the paper's publisher and/or editor isn't going micromanage the papers like you claim.

 

No I am saying that about a half dozen Corporations control 95% of the media. They are in charge and you don't even know it.

 

Do you know who owns NBC, Newsweek, Time, Fox, WSJ, New York Times, etc. I want to know where those "couple thousand" News sources are.

[Phurfur 70]

 

The fact is that editors and columnists have a lot of freedom in who and what they cover and report on, some boss high up in the hierarchy beyond the paper's publisher and/or editor isn't going micromanage the papers like you claim.

 

 

No it is not a fact! They have no freedom other than to find a new job. People are hired according to their views and are let go when there views disagree. I have heard a half dozen journalist say this in the last few years. Why is Lou Dobbs no longer a CNN? How about John Stossel, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams? Both have said they were censored.

 

You are coming off as being really naive.

[SUXBNME 1,348]

Because he looks like Magneto ?

 

My link

[OldMaid 1,838]

Because he looks like Magneto ?

 

My link

I was gonna go with Gandalf, but Magneto might be funnier.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

he said in the last debate that he would end all foreign aid. Not that he would revise the system or make nations who receive it accountable; that he would end it.

 

He says he would do a lot of things that the President has no authority to do, which is kind of ironic since he such a warrior for the Constitution and all.

Seriously

 

Read what you wrote. The ability to stop foreign aid is unconstitutional...

 

What part of foreign aid IS constitutional?

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Former President Carter's new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.

 

Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.

 

The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don't need solutions imposed by outsiders. It's easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we're not the ones suffering.

 

Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.

 

Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.

 

This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn't buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, millions of Muslims hate the United States.

 

It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.

 

The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

 

January 23, 2007

 

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[JT 137]

Because Ron Paul isn't a puppet,...he's a REAL Candidate, a REAL Politician, a REAL man.

 

The Powers that be won't let him be President, even if that's what the people want. I truly believe that it's all fixed nowadays and has been at least since JFK.

 

He may be a real politician...not an endearing quality in most books...and a real man...I'll trust your insight on that...but he's not a real candidate.

[kutulu 1,554]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Ron Paul was declared the winner on Saturday of a weeklong Republican presidential straw poll in Democratic President Barack Obama's home state of Illinois.

 

Texas Congressman Paul won 52 percent of the combined 3,649 online and in-person votes cast between October 29 and Saturday evening. He won 66.5 percent of the votes cast over the Internet and 8 percent of those cast in person.

 

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney earned 7 percent of the online votes cast and 35 percent of the in-person votes, winning the most in-person votes cast at 22 locations, the party said.

 

Businessman Herman Cain won 15 percent of the online vote and 29 percent of the in-person vote.

 

Romney's and Cain's combined totals were not immediately announced.

 

Each voter was required to make a $5 contribution to the Illinois Republican Party to cover costs of the straw poll and to support state and local Republican candidates.

 

"Today's straw poll was an excellent opportunity to showcase our party's strength one year out of the election," said Illinois Republican Party chairman Pat Brady. "I am pleased with today's turnout and look forward to building on our successes from 2010."

 

Republicans hope to make Illinois a contested state in the 2012 general election, after Obama won his home state easily in the 2008 election.

 

Illinois Republicans captured four additional seats in the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections, giving them an 11 to eight majority.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Stern; Editing by Vicki Allen)

[Phurfur 70]

He may be a real politician...not an endearing quality in most books...and a real man...I'll trust your insight on that...but he's not a real candidate.

 

 

You’re just repeating what the media said. If the media loved him as much as BHO you would have a different opinion. Do you see how that works?

[Saint Elistan 106]

Another Money Bomb on Veteran's Day. I'll see ya there.

[Little Rusty 17]

You’re just repeating what the media said. If the media loved him as much as BHO you would have a different opinion. Do you see how that works?

 

[remote controller 133]

Romney is a waffler.

 

Cain is a liar with no foreign policy.

 

Perry can't even debate.

 

Gingrich is the one moving up. He's without a doubt the most intelligent and seasoned but his personal history should rule him out from the get-go.

 

Why isn't Paul gaining ground on this clown college?

Cuz he's a nut case!

[JT 137]

You’re just repeating what the media said. If the media loved him as much as BHO you would have a different opinion. Do you see how that works?

 

So if someone has an opinion that jibes with that of your targeted "media", they must be a parrot?

 

I've been following the political process and voting in local, state and federal elections since 1978. I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I claim affiliation to either party.

 

During those years, there have been hundreds of individuals mentioned as presidential candidates. In my experience, only a small percentage of those are actual candidates (ie people who have a remote chance at winning their party nomination or the office itself). In my opinion, Ron Paul has never met that criteria.

 

Sometimes it's their spiel. Sometimes their personality. Sometimes it's nothing more than a gut feeling based on how I perceive their relatability to the masses. Sometimes it's a little of all of that. Rarely does it have a lot to do with substance. Elections rarely do; they're beauty pageants.

 

Doesn't mean he might not have some great ideas, or that it's not ok for you to like him (even if some media source likes him as well; I trust you'd have enough sense to develop your own opinion). Just means that I've never seen him as an electable candidate.

 

See how that works when you don't knee-jerk generalize everything because of your fear of the boogeyman?

[mobb_deep 919]

Seriously

 

Read what you wrote. The ability to stop foreign aid is unconstitutional...

 

What part of foreign aid IS constitutional?

 

Maybe the part where we let all of the blacks we stole from foreign countries count as 3/5 a person?

[Phurfur 70]

Maybe the part where we let all of the blacks we stole from foreign countries count as 3/5 a person?

 

Please tell us who "we" is Mr. History!

 

You are forgetting about the African leaders who sold their people and prisoners into slavery. Why don't you mention the hundreds of thousands of white Americans who gave their lives to end slavery. I guess we all know what you are!

 

This might help put the times in perspective for you.

 

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city

 

 

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

[mobb_deep 919]

Please tell us who "we" is Mr. History!

 

You are forgetting about the African leaders who sold their people and prisoners into slavery. Why don't you mention the hundreds of thousands of white Americans who gave their lives to end slavery. I guess we all know what you are!

 

This might help put the times in perspective for you.

 

 

 

 

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

 

I think you're confusing my sarcasm for fever. just like you're confusing a 250 year old useless document as relevant. HTH.

[KSB2424 3,085]

So if someone has an opinion that jibes with that of your targeted "media", they must be a parrot?

 

I've been following the political process and voting in local, state and federal elections since 1978. I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I claim affiliation to either party.

 

During those years, there have been hundreds of individuals mentioned as presidential candidates. In my experience, only a small percentage of those are actual candidates (ie people who have a remote chance at winning their party nomination or the office itself). In my opinion, Ron Paul has never met that criteria.

 

Sometimes it's their spiel. Sometimes their personality. Sometimes it's nothing more than a gut feeling based on how I perceive their relatability to the masses. Sometimes it's a little of all of that. Rarely does it have a lot to do with substance. Elections rarely do; they're beauty pageants.

 

Doesn't mean he might not have some great ideas, or that it's not ok for you to like him (even if some media source likes him as well; I trust you'd have enough sense to develop your own opinion). Just means that I've never seen him as an electable candidate.

 

See how that works when you don't knee-jerk generalize everything because of your fear of the boogeyman?

JT, I'm going to change your mind on Ron Paul. With a sports analogy. Bear with me...

 

Ron Paul is the Tim Tebow of the Pesidential race.

 

1. He's different than all the other candidates.

2. He doesn't 'look' the part

3. His positive traits are 'unorthodox'

4. He has a weird cult following

5. The media (i.e. ESPN analysts) write him off due to 1 thru 3, are scared of change and they think they know it all.

6. The folks who listen to the media parrot that sentiment (i.e. Ron Paul has no chance due to 1 thru 3 above)

 

We have to put our preconcieved notions of what a President has to be and look like aside, and instead, choose the guy that gives us (America) the best chance to win. Like Tebow does for the Broncos over Orton (the status quo).

[DanXIII 8]

Ron Paul will pay off the entire national debt with ten ounces of gold, which equates to like 14 trillion fiats.

[JT 137]

JT, I'm going to change your mind on Ron Paul. With a sports analogy. Bear with me...

 

Ron Paul is the Tim Tebow of the Pesidential race.

 

1. He's different than all the other candidates.

2. He doesn't 'look' the part

3. His positive traits are 'unorthodox'

4. He has a weird cult following

5. The media (i.e. ESPN analysts) write him off due to 1 thru 3, are scared of change and they think they know it all.

6. The folks who listen to the media parrot that sentiment (i.e. Ron Paul has no chance due to 1 thru 3 above)

 

We have to put our preconcieved notions of what a President has to be and look like aside, and instead, choose the guy that gives us (America) the best chance to win. Like Tebow does for the Broncos over Orton (the status quo).

 

Appreciate the effort, but Tebow doesn't require a mandate from the masses and that's a key to the process. He doesn't even have support from within. Herman Cain, a man with no more chance of becoming President than I do, being the frontrunner shows what the party thinks of Ron Paul.

 

Aside from that, I'm still looking for positive traits, unorthodox or otherwise, that would sway my opinion. It's not surprising to me that he's generated a consituency among straight white men (not that there's anything wrong with that), as his approach to individual freedoms appears to apply only to them. If you look at many of his positions, statements and his record in Congress, you wouldn't think he was libertarian except for all the people screaming that he's the libertarian answer.

 

Again, I don't claim to be an expert, largely in part because I reject most media coverage on either side. They're TV programs, not journalism, built to deliver ratings, not anything of substance. Read what I can, research a bit, garner opinions from those who study it closer than I do on both sides, and try to form a reasonably informed opinion of my own.

[nikki2200 4]

JT, I'm going to change your mind on Ron Paul. With a sports analogy. Bear with me...

 

Ron Paul is the Tim Tebow of the Pesidential race.

 

 

Oh no you didn't!!!