Ron Paul given 89 seconds in debate by SLEAZE-B-S

[Jebril]

No, Ron Paul, whatever else he might be, is a pretend candidate for president who cannot win but who happens to have a cult-like following of fanatic activists who bomb every fake poll they can get in on (straw polls for example) which do nothing more than create a self-fulfilling illusion that he has widespread, broad, general support that might translate into acutal competitiveness in the primaries.

I can create a better scenario for you, how about this;

Ron Paul supporters are only growing since the 08' primaries, he's garnered a lot of interest and support, his books sell well on Amazon despite not being carried by the media or an autobiography. At many debates if not most he gets mostly applause (tons which I may ask), he's doing well but the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge this recognizing the drastic changes he would bring to their infrastructure. People who've been completely brainwashed up the butt by their TVs and newspapers of course believe a 'credible' journalist from CNN, FOX or the Washington Post much more than average younger people who appear to be fanatical on the internet.

Most people don't see the movement as a passion for this country but something like a blind Twlight fanclub with no questioning to their idol Ron Paul. This is simply not the case, most Ron Paul supporters don't fully agree with him on every single thing, in fact many are looking into every little thing he stands for trying to nitpick it but they do it to present this candidate as best as they can. Because as we all know, no one's perfect but I can guarantee you Ron Paul is probably the closest thing to it that we've got in this election. He speaks sense at a fundamental and logical level that appeals to people with a brain.

It's okay to have questions about him, but to discredit him because the media said so and cuz you don't like how his supporters come off, that comes off as foolish and closed minded to me.

If you'd like perhaps I'll research more on your candidate of choice, if you research mine and we can debate what we don't like about each of the other candidates? I'm guessing you're gonna pass though, based on the little I know about you.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, Ron Paul, whatever else he might be, is a pretend candidate for president who cannot win but who happens to have a cult-like following of fanatic activists who bomb every fake poll they can get in on (straw polls for example) which do nothing more than create a self-fulfilling illusion that he has widespread, broad, general support that might translate into acutal competitiveness in the primaries.

I can create a better scenario for you, how about this;

Ron Paul supporters are only growing since the 08' primaries, he's garnered a lot of interest and support, his books sell well on Amazon despite not being carried by the media or an autobiography. At many debates if not most he gets mostly applause (tons which I may ask), he's doing well but the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge this recognizing the drastic changes he would bring to their infrastructure. People who've been completely brainwashed up the butt by their TVs and newspapers of course believe a 'credible' journalist from CNN, FOX or the Washington Post much more than average younger people who appear to be fanatical on the internet.

Most people don't see the movement as a passion for this country but something like a blind Twlight fanclub with no questioning to their idol Ron Paul. This is simply not the case, most Ron Paul supporters don't fully agree with him on every single thing, in fact many are looking into every little thing he stands for trying to nitpick it but they do it to present this candidate as best as they can. Because as we all know, no one's perfect but I can guarantee you Ron Paul is probably the closest thing to it that we've got in this election. He speaks sense at a fundamental and logical level that appeals to people with a brain.

It's okay to have questions about him, but to discredit him because the media said so and cuz you don't like how his supporters come off, that comes off as foolish and closed minded to me.

If you'd like perhaps I'll research more on your candidate of choice, if you research mine and we can debate what we don't like about each of the other candidates? I'm guessing you're gonna pass though, based on the little I know about you.

I admire your optimism, but you aren't grounded in reality.

The problem is that the GOP rank and file detests Paul. His penchant for saying things like "They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we are over there." tends to piss off the base that had bought into W. Bush's simplistic world view that consisted of two catagories: "Terrorists" and "Non-terrorists".

The issue isn't that Paul simply had to get his message out or needs more air time in debates to win over voters. The issue is that he needs the votes of people who made up their minds about him a long time ago. As much as that might piss you off, people like Carb and I watched the conservative posters lambast Paul in '08. His problem has never been the liberals. He hasn't made it that far in the process. His problem is the conservative base. They will never allow him to have the keys to the GOP nomination.

So, again, Paul is doomed. He can't win the GOP nomination and since (for reasons I'll never know) he insists on running as a Republican; the sun is rapidly setting on him.

I think he will win Iowa and possibly New Hampshire and then get stomped in the South, the midwest and the west.

 

[GHook93]

Paul polls from 8-10 percent and usually falls in 4th place. I think that is more than sufficient to be taken seriously. I should be given more time and more questions. Heck Gingrich was given more when he was polling lower than Paul.

I think Bachmann, Huntman and Santorum should be grateful for just being there.

 

[Liberty]

I will never understand why the left, particulary on this board, hate on ron paul. He is as anti-establishment, anti-corruption as they come...I thought liberals were for change?

 

[WatertheTree]

I will never understand why the left, particulary on this board, hate on ron paul. He is as anti-establishment, anti-corruption as they come...I thought liberals were for change?

I think most liberals auto reject him. Which when all you see is two minute sound bytes of his libertarian ideals it is easy to understand. I also think there is an 'auto bias' agianst candidates from the other side of the isle. For a long time republican polititions have been constant sell outs, just like pretty much all the other GOP candidates. Corporate liberals, as I like to call them. They like to spend money and expand government, but only at the benifits of huge powerfull corporations.

To like Ron Paul you have to actually spend some time listening to what he has to say. Changes in policy will never sound good in two minute sound bytes, and it is hard to understand that he is cut from a different cloth then the typical GOP.

The biggest difference is that Ron Paul cares more about the middle class and the poor then he cares about the rich. Thats a huge difference from most GOP candidates. He also seeks to abolish the corporatism in government, the cronyism, and the corruption.

I think in time the left will support Ron Paul. While he will not address there long term goals, his short term goals are the goals of the vast majority of the population who finds this government repulsive in its behavior.

 

[geauxtohell]

I will never understand why the left, particulary on this board, hate on ron paul. He is as anti-establishment, anti-corruption as they come...I thought liberals were for change?

I think most liberals auto reject him. Which when all you see is two minute sound bytes of his libertarian ideals it is easy to understand. I also think there is an 'auto bias' agianst candidates from the other side of the isle. For a long time republican polititions have been constant sell outs, just like pretty much all the other GOP candidates. Corporate liberals, as I like to call them. They like to spend money and expand government, but only at the benifits of huge powerfull corporations.

To like Ron Paul you have to actually spend some time listening to what he has to say. Changes in policy will never sound good in two minute sound bytes, and it is hard to understand that he is cut from a different cloth then the typical GOP.

The biggest difference is that Ron Paul cares more about the middle class and the poor then he cares about the rich. Thats a huge difference from most GOP candidates. He also seeks to abolish the corporatism in government, the cronyism, and the corruption.

I think in time the left will support Ron Paul. While he will not address there long term goals, his short term goals are the goals of the vast majority of the population who finds this government repulsive in its behavior.

We don't auto-reject him and we aren't you problem. Get back to us with those lame talking points when he survives the primary (in other words never).

We aren't the voters who are voting against him.

I have a more nuanced position on Paul in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/180492-paul-supporters-what-are-you-going-to-do.html

 

[GHook93]

This is the fault of the liberal media? The event was a Republican debate...if they were giving liberal candidates more time-I'd see your point.

They did do that. Romney,Perry and most of the others are liberal candidates. Ron Paul is probably the only real Conservative Candidate running. Although i will say i'm ok with Bachmann & Gingrich. They're more Conservative than some of the others.

Huntsman doesn't get much focus-and I'd say he's the most liberal one on the stage.

Huntsman wants to remove all tax entitlements, he won't fight the trade war with China (meaning no tarriffs), he is strongly antiUnion, his tax plan is very conservative, other than the driving privileges to illegals, he was strong on illegal immigration when he was a UT governor. He is only liberal in the minds of liberals!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I will never understand why the left, particulary on this board, hate on ron paul. He is as anti-establishment, anti-corruption as they come...I thought liberals were for change?

I have wholeheartedly supported Ron Paul's foreign policy in principle for a long time. It's the part where he wants to turn the United States into fifty small countries that I start to have a problem.

 

[Truthmatters]

How much time does FOX give RP???

 

[Truthseeker420]

Yea they screwed him in the NBC one too. People really wanted to hear more from him and less from the others. It's disapppointing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIclDEY4BFo]Ron Paul on Fox News...they attempt to make fun on him. See his response LOL - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives should love the way the commercial FOR-PROFIT media are manipulating the debates FOR PROFIT.

Idiot... You can still not like a product, even if it makes a profit. No wonder you support Obama, nothing has to make sense.

I said the 'way' the media is doing it. You want to support a law that requires all presidential debates to be commercial-free?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How much time does FOX give RP???

I've already pointed out that the debate where Ron Paul got the smallest percentage of the time was the one sponsored by Foxnews.

 

[madasheck]

How much time does FOX give RP???

I've already pointed out that the debate where Ron Paul got the smallest percentage of the time was the one sponsored by Foxnews.

My thinking is the Republican establishment could care less about Ron Paul and will ignore him no matter what. They're big on name recognition and Romney (and Gingrich) fit the bill.

 

[paulitician]

CBS & NBC are known to be in the Democratic Party's pocket. Look at who runs these Networks. They're huge Democratic Campaign donors. And obviously these donors also have Socialist/Progressive leanings. Dr. Paul always gets screwed by the Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. I'm not surprised by this.

 

[bodecea]

CBS & NBC are known to be in the Democratic Party's pocket. Look at who runs these Networks. They're huge Democratic Campaign donors. And obviously these donors also have Socialist/Progressive leanings. Dr. Paul always gets screwed by the Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. I'm not surprised by this.

The guy who owns FOX doesn't donate to Democrats.

 

[paulitician]

CBS & NBC are known to be in the Democratic Party's pocket. Look at who runs these Networks. They're huge Democratic Campaign donors. And obviously these donors also have Socialist/Progressive leanings. Dr. Paul always gets screwed by the Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. I'm not surprised by this.

The guy who owns FOX doesn't donate to Democrats.

He has held large fundraisers for Hillary Clinton though. I'm not sure of his legal status on donating though. Not sure he has that right. But Murdoch has been a big Hillary Clinton supporter in the past.

 

[madasheck]

CBS & NBC are known to be in the Democratic Party's pocket. Look at who runs these Networks. They're huge Democratic Campaign donors. And obviously these donors also have Socialist/Progressive leanings. Dr. Paul always gets screwed by the Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. I'm not surprised by this.

Good grief, spoken like a true Fox Newshound. Just because CBS and NBC don't twist news and spread lies like Fox does doesn't mean they're in the pockets of the Democratic Party. Funny how Republicans have had their minds so screwed up by Fox News that they don't know what real news reporting is supposed to be.