Register to reply

Ron Paul's candidacy

by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
Share this thread:
Dotini
#19
Sep8-11, 08:53 AM
PF Gold
P: 515
If you are fighting and broke, you will never accomplish a thing.

Ron Paul has been consistently right on the two biggest issues of our time - war and debt - and the others have all been off base.

I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.

Another valuable quality of Ron Paul is that he points out the many ways we are not following the Constitution. We should either follow it, amend it, or burn it up altogether. Take your choice and do something, because to say one thing in our highest document and do another in our actual practice is insane.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Ivan Seeking
#20
Sep8-11, 11:32 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.
Given that Palin, Bachmann, and Trump have all been darlings of the right at one time or another, and given that Palin was the vp candidate at one point, I don't see your point.

Paul doesn't even have a chance of being nominated, much less elected. Trump finally buried himself with his birther idiocy - that's when he fell off the map. Palin has been discredited and hardly a headliner anymore. And Backmann won the Iowa straw poll.

I guess I should have said nominated, not elected. The Republicans do seem to be trying their best to nominate someone who isn't electable.
Freye
#21
Sep8-11, 11:47 AM
P: 35
Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.
Even though he is anti-abortion, he's for allowing individual states, as opposed to the federal government, to decide their own rules on abortion.
lisab
#22
Sep8-11, 12:15 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,987
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Ron Paul isn't considered a vaild candidate for many reasons. His band of followers make his support seem far greater than it really is, so he's largely ignored.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_470319.html
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
The results Proton linked to indicate to me that Evo is right. Paul's supporters are more likely to vote in these unscientific polls, but I don't think he actually "won" the debate.
Evo
#23
Sep8-11, 12:19 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,545
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
LOL, an online poll. His army of online (followers) do this to every online poll, which is (as mentioned in an earlier article) why the media doesn't mention him. The votes are bogus.
Proton Soup
#24
Sep8-11, 04:37 PM
P: 1,070
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Given that Palin, Bachmann, and Trump have all been darlings of the right at one time or another, and given that Palin was the vp candidate at one point, I don't see your point.

Paul doesn't even have a chance of being nominated, much less elected. Trump finally buried himself with his birther idiocy - that's when he fell off the map. Palin has been discredited and hardly a headliner anymore. And Backmann won the Iowa straw poll.

I guess I should have said nominated, not elected. The Republicans do seem to be trying their best to nominate someone who isn't electable.
eh, i think there is more to it. there is a bit of an intentional shut-out on Paul in the major media. like here, Washington Post won't even list Paul as a loser. what's up with that? even Newt is up there, and Newt is the guy who's entire campaign team ran out on him recently.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fpAK_blog.html
Evo
#25
Sep8-11, 05:19 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,545
He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.

The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.

Here’s a pretty safe bet: Ron Paul will win Saturday’s Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll. Or at least he will do better than many better-known and better-financed 2012 Republican presidential candidates.

Why? The Texas congressman and 2008 presidential candidate almost always does. While his ardent supporters aren’t numerous enough to win him actual primaries or caucuses, they’ve mastered the unofficial straw poll format and they’ve decided those informal polls send an important message.
Well, it might if it wasn't for the fact that everyone that matters knows it's a sham, IMO.

“In 2007, when the media was all but ignoring Ron Paul’s candidacy we realized that straw polls were something we could win, and they are really about the only way to get Ron Paul any media attention at all. So we just all start showing up,” said Brandon Yates, an activist who has been showing up to straw poll events on Paul’s behalf since 2007.


During the 2008 presidential election, Paul won small straw polls in at least 10 states. He rarely broke into double-digits in the real caucuses or primaries that year, but he would often win by a landslide in the straw polls — he took 4 percent in the Arizona primary, for example, but swept a Phoenix straw poll with 80 percent of the vote.
This is why he doesn't get media coverage. Well, except for media coverage of why he doesn't deserve media coverage.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1XOzYsvrY
Chi Meson
#26
Sep8-11, 05:32 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Chi Meson's Avatar
P: 1,772
Quote Quote by Char. Limit View Post
So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winning? Would you vote for him?
I already voted for Ron Paul, in 1988. It was the first presidential election I ever voted in, and I essentially cast my vote for "someone else."

Ron appears to be the most Libertarian person in the field, and if all the people who called themselves Libertarian actually were libertarian, he would be the front-runner.
Dotini
#27
Sep8-11, 05:38 PM
PF Gold
P: 515
Ron Paul has gained name recognition from and since the '08 campaign. He's doing even better this time around, not least because he's been so right on the war and debt issues, and all the others know it and are trying to co-opt elements of his message. It matters not to him or me if he's nominated or not. The important thing is that mainstream Republicans and thinking Democrats increasingly resemble Paul, jettison the neocons and neoliberals, and return a semblance of sanity to foreign and monetary policy. That's the hope, and that, folks, is the thin reed upon which our future viability depends. We will assuredly get the government we deserve.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Evo
#28
Sep8-11, 05:54 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,545
Uhm, yeah.

Ron Paul: I Don't Accept the Theory of Evolution

In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting, the Texas representative said that asking about evolution during a recent debate between GOP rivals in Iowa was "inappropriate" and went on to clarify where he stood on the issue.

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
http://www.wctv.tv/wswg/headlines/Ro...128652403.html
Proton Soup
#29
Sep8-11, 05:58 PM
P: 1,070
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.

The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.

Well, it might if it wasn't for the fact that everyone that matters knows it's a sham, IMO.



This is why he doesn't get media coverage. Well, except for media coverage of why he doesn't deserve media coverage.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1XOzYsvrY
well, i see what you're saying, but i'd suggest to you that when media outlets devote more time to certain candidates and call them the front runners, that this serves as political advocacy. this political advocacy then influences public opinion and the public then believes that the only viable candidates are the ones that the media tells them are viable. it's free commercials, more or less.

it's going to be interesting to see how the future political landscape develops, as a new generation of americans more and more disconnected from traditional media.
Topher925
#30
Sep8-11, 06:01 PM
Topher925's Avatar
P: 1,672
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.

The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.
I disagree Evo. If there's one thing the media has proven, its that the media is dumber than Ron Paul's followers. I believe the reason Paul isn't being recognized is because he's an outcast in his own party and has no support from the other side. The GOP and its associates refuse to recognize him as a candidate which just so happens to be the same GOP that owns/runs/commands the majority of the news networks. I think they are trying to quietly defeat him by not allowing him to have any kind of popularity.

Whether you like him or not, he has been right about debt issues and all that which was already stated above. I also believe in (most) of his intentions and ideas for improving the economy. I wouldn't say he's my #1 choice for 2012 but I would gladly take him over ANY other Republican candidate right now except for maybe Buddy Roemer, jury's still out on that guy.
Dotini
#31
Sep8-11, 06:03 PM
PF Gold
P: 515
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Uhm, yeah.
I'm glad you partly agree!

If we were electing the Scientist-in-Chief it would be another matter. But evolution, abortion and drugs pale in significance to war and debt. Remember, if you are fighting and broke, you are going nowhere fast.

Respectfully yours,
Steve
Evo
#32
Sep8-11, 06:11 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,545
Quote Quote by Topher925 View Post
I disagree Evo. If there's one thing the media has proven, its that the media is dumber than Ron Paul's followers. I believe the reason Paul isn't being recognized is because he's an outcast in his own party and has no support from the other side. The GOP and its associates refuse to recognize him as a candidate which just so happens to be the same GOP that owns/runs/commands the majority of the news networks. I think they are trying to quietly defeat him by not allowing him to have any kind of popularity.
Conspiracy theory? You know that's against the rules.

Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
I'm glad you partly agree!
Lol, I was being dismissive. But you know that.
ThomasT
#33
Sep9-11, 04:41 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
... media outlets devote more time to certain candidates and call them the front runners, that this serves as political advocacy. this political advocacy then influences public opinion and the public then believes that the only viable candidates are the ones that the media tells them are viable. it's free commercials, more or less.
This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no moreso than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?
Freye
#34
Sep9-11, 04:56 PM
P: 35
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no moreso than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?
When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.
Evo
#35
Sep9-11, 06:11 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,545
Quote Quote by Freye View Post
When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.
He talks about his religious beliefs a lot. Even going so far as the say that he doesn't believe in evolution
Ron Paul: I Don't Accept the Theory of Evolution

In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting, the Texas representative said that asking about evolution during a recent debate between GOP rivals in Iowa was "inappropriate" and went on to clarify where he stood on the issue.

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
see my previous post on this

And for more on Ron Paul's religious views

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Ron+Paul+religious+quotes
ThomasT
#36
Sep9-11, 06:37 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Freye View Post
When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.
That's how I thought about Paul for a while. But my opinion of Paul changed a bit when I went to a website that had all the candidates positions on various issues (from debates, speeches, interviews, etc.) going back a few years. It seems, from what I read, that his judgement is somewhat tainted by his theistic religious views, in line with what Evo posted in reply to you.

But I'm still curious as to the real reason why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul. Which one(s) of his positions is (are) the deal breaker(s)?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Paul Dirac Science & Math Textbooks 12
Paul the octopus Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 5
Les Paul General Discussion 10
Ron Paul Current Events 197
The Taz-Cut Con - Paul Krugman Current Events 1