• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

For non RP Bots, why is Ron Paul a Loon?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Non "RP-Bot" here, and I don't think he or his supporters are loons. His most vocal opponents are quite a bit off their rocker, though.

I guess I can see why people would wet themselves over the thought of having their Federal Reserve dismantled. Not that it scares me, but I understand the psychology behind people getting scared when being shown the door out of their comfort zones, no matter how much greener the grass could be on the other side.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
You know, I love to rag on Bush as much as the next guy (actually, considerably more), but I must give credit where credit is due; George Bush did not say strategery. The word actually came about from a sketch on Saturday Night Live where Will Ferrell was playing Bush in the days leading up to the Bush v. Gore election. Apparently, Bush later did use the word, but it was assumed to be an intentional reference to the sketch. Wikipedia has way too much random shit on it.
no sh*t?! wow... I just learned something! thank you!
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: palehorse74
When RP and his supporters propose an isolationist military strategy, they are essentially saying that they genuinely dont care what happens to innocent people outside of the United States. In other words, most of the world could die tomorrow, or be forced into slavery, and RP supporters just wouldnt give a flying fvck.

seriously.
It's not that I don't care, it's that I don't feel like the entire world is our fuck to give. You must pick and choose your flying fucks to give wisely. Otherwise your flying fucks will be deluted too much to be worth a flying fuck and your own ability to give a flying fuck about yourself will be at the willingness of other nations to give a flying fuck.

To assume everyone else needs our help is to assume everyone else is helpless without us.


The problem with this argument is that we don't do anything for anybody else. We do it all for ourselves. If we gave a shit about anybody but ourselves, we'd be in Darfur, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Mexico City, so on and so forth forever. What the US cares about is our ability to do business overseas. That's why our military is deployed world-wide, and that's why we have defense pacts with other nations.

In case anybody hasn't noticed, we don't manufacture much of anything anymore. We are a society of consumers, with the service industry being just about the only industry that exists within US borders. In order for this domestic system to perpetuate, we have to be able to manufacture very cheaply in foreign countries and assure economic stability for as many countries as possible, including our new overseas manufacturing base (thanks repubs!) and our consumer base (other wealthy countries). Our military is deployed to protect our ability to do business in highly favorable markets, which many would consider exploitative. This very fact is also why so many poor people in Islamic countries hate us.

I'm in a mixed situation here where I believe that the current situation isn't very humane or good for this country in the long-term (I think we need a working and middle class with a local manufacturing base and tarriffs to support it), but I also realize that if you become isolationist without having a real groundwork for a different kind of economy, this nation will be plunged into an economic crisis unlike anything we've ever seen. You don't just 'save money' by withdrawing from Iraq and give that money back to the taxpayers or whatever it is he wants to do and expect everything to be fine. That's a very ignorant viewpoint that panders to the rest of the uninformed.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
CitizenKain's post is so incredibly (oh I'll just not say to be nice) I'm not even sure where to start other than if that's what people really think then we are in a hell of a lot more trouble than I ever thought we were.

I'll start with no boom-busts since the big busts called a depression. Ugh..... Well 1st there was a boom then there was the depression and as I already pointed out and as even Ben Bernanke has admitted the depression was indeed the fault of the Federal Reserve. Milton Friedman and the worlds leading economists all agree, the Fed was the leading cause of the Depression. I digress, so what you are saying the great "Boom" of the 1950's didn't happen. You know the "Baby boom"? I guess you don't realize that was a financial "boom" as well? Then of course you had the oil crisis in the mid 70's I guess you're saying that wasn't a "bust". Then directly after that you had a boom then in the mid 80's you had another bust with the savings and loan shake up. Then we boomed again and yet one more time during G H Bush we had another bust. After that small bust Clinton balanced the budget and technology got cool for everyone and we had a boom and of course in 01 we had a big bust. Now we have a boom for a very long time with the wonderful Fed providing such unbelievably candified rates for every bank who is FDIC insured gets damn near free money, all in the name of stimulating the boom.

Now of course we're going to have a nice big bust on our hands, oh boy. Yep I see what you're saying, no boom-busts since the depression.... UGH

That's just what I can think of off the top of my head too..... Wow..... Maybe you're just in denial.

Moving on how pants on head crazy North Korea is. Well to be honest we have crazy all over the place and it looks to most I think even here that if N Korea did go bat shit crazy S Korea could probably handle them. If not it's not like we can't provide aid to them.

Ugh and you bring World War 2 up as if we actually were interventionist. We were attacked in World War 2, maybe you just forgot. It was our non-intervention policy that made us the super nation we are now after ww2. Unfortunately it was our intervention throughout Germany and Europe that literally created Hitler's demonic Reich. Time to read some history I think.
Yes, it is time to read some history. We were providing substantial aid to England throughout the first years of the conflict. We were only non-interventionist in name. Hell that was even in Ken Burns' documentary. :) You won't even have to read.

I'm confused about your demonic reich statement - it was the european policy of appeasement towards Hitler that allowed him to launch his war, which is a completely opposite concept of intervention. Unless now you're talking about the EU, and if that is the case I would urge you to be very careful in your comparisons of any body or person to Hitler and Nazi germany.

Look at the origins of Nazi germany - economic devastation at the hands of the allies in WWI is the root cause. If you want more detail I suggest you read some of that history you've been talking about. Post-WW2 you had the Marshall plan, which spent enormous sums of US money to rebuild Germany. Where did that lead? To Germany becoming an economic power and model country in the world. In other words; Exhibit A: isolationism=world war. Exhibit B: reconstruction=oktoberfest.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
CitizenKain's post is so incredibly (oh I'll just not say to be nice) I'm not even sure where to start other than if that's what people really think then we are in a hell of a lot more trouble than I ever thought we were.

I'll start with no boom-busts since the big busts called a depression. Ugh..... Well 1st there was a boom then there was the depression and as I already pointed out and as even Ben Bernanke has admitted the depression was indeed the fault of the Federal Reserve. Milton Friedman and the worlds leading economists all agree, the Fed was the leading cause of the Depression. I digress, so what you are saying the great "Boom" of the 1950's didn't happen. You know the "Baby boom"? I guess you don't realize that was a financial "boom" as well? Then of course you had the oil crisis in the mid 70's I guess you're saying that wasn't a "bust". Then directly after that you had a boom then in the mid 80's you had another bust with the savings and loan shake up. Then we boomed again and yet one more time during G H Bush we had another bust. After that small bust Clinton balanced the budget and technology got cool for everyone and we had a boom and of course in 01 we had a big bust. Now we have a boom for a very long time with the wonderful Fed providing such unbelievably candified rates for every bank who is FDIC insured gets damn near free money, all in the name of stimulating the boom.

Now of course we're going to have a nice big bust on our hands, oh boy. Yep I see what you're saying, no boom-busts since the depression.... UGH

That's just what I can think of off the top of my head too..... Wow..... Maybe you're just in denial.

Moving on how pants on head crazy North Korea is. Well to be honest we have crazy all over the place and it looks to most I think even here that if N Korea did go bat shit crazy S Korea could probably handle them. If not it's not like we can't provide aid to them.

Ugh and you bring World War 2 up as if we actually were interventionist. We were attacked in World War 2, maybe you just forgot. It was our non-intervention policy that made us the super nation we are now after ww2. Unfortunately it was our intervention throughout Germany and Europe that literally created Hitler's demonic Reich. Time to read some history I think.
Yes, it is time to read some history. We were providing substantial aid to England throughout the first years of the conflict. We were only non-interventionist in name. Hell that was even in Ken Burns' documentary. :) You won't even have to read.

I'm confused about your demonic reich statement - it was the european policy of appeasement towards Hitler that allowed him to launch his war, which is a completely opposite concept of intervention. Unless now you're talking about the EU, and if that is the case I would urge you to be very careful in your comparisons of any body or person to Hitler and Nazi germany.

Look at the origins of Nazi germany - economic devastation at the hands of the allies in WWI is the root cause. If you want more detail I suggest you read some of that history you've been talking about. Post-WW2 you had the Marshall plan, which spent enormous sums of US money to rebuild Germany. Where did that lead? To Germany becoming an economic power and model country in the world. In other words; Exhibit A: isolationism=world war. Exhibit B: reconstruction=oktoberfest.
Much better said than when I tried.
 

virginiakid

Junior Member
Jan 16, 2008
24
0
0
If Ron Paul was a loon, I hardly think he would have the endorsment of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, top pro-life advocate Norma McCorvey a.k.a. "Jane Roe" of Roe V Wade. Nor would he have the endorsment of Donald Luskin a top financial commentaor for CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckon with whether you like him or not.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: virginiakid
If Ron Paul was a loon, I hardly think he would have the endorsment of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, top pro-life advocate Norma McCorvey a.k.a. "Jane Roe" of Roe V Wade. Nor would he have the endorsment of Donald Luskin a top financial commentaor for CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckon with whether you like him or not.
He also has the endorsement of a large number of white supremacists and truther groups.

No, he's a joke.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: virginiakid
If Ron Paul was a loon, I hardly think he would have the endorsment of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, top pro-life advocate Norma McCorvey a.k.a. "Jane Roe" of Roe V Wade. Nor would he have the endorsment of Donald Luskin a top financial commentaor for CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckon with whether you like him or not.
5 - 8% of the population does not constitute a "candidate to be reckoned with."
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,991
10,469
136
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: virginiakid
If Ron Paul was a loon, I hardly think he would have the endorsment of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, top pro-life advocate Norma McCorvey a.k.a. "Jane Roe" of Roe V Wade. Nor would he have the endorsment of Donald Luskin a top financial commentaor for CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckon with whether you like him or not.
5 - 8% of the population does not constitute a "candidate to be reckoned with."
What was the margin of victory in the popular vote in the last 2 elections?
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: virginiakid
If Ron Paul was a loon, I hardly think he would have the endorsment of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, top pro-life advocate Norma McCorvey a.k.a. "Jane Roe" of Roe V Wade. Nor would he have the endorsment of Donald Luskin a top financial commentaor for CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckon with whether you like him or not.
5 - 8% of the population does not constitute a "candidate to be reckoned with."
What was the margin of victory in the popular vote in the last 2 elections?
Ron Paul could play a fractional role in this election, most likely hurting the Republican side, but he is not a "candidate to be reckoned with" in any sense of the words.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,991
10,469
136
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: virginiakid
If Ron Paul was a loon, I hardly think he would have the endorsment of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, top pro-life advocate Norma McCorvey a.k.a. "Jane Roe" of Roe V Wade. Nor would he have the endorsment of Donald Luskin a top financial commentaor for CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckon with whether you like him or not.
5 - 8% of the population does not constitute a "candidate to be reckoned with."
What was the margin of victory in the popular vote in the last 2 elections?
Irrelevant to my statement. Ron Paul could play a fractional role in this election, most likely hurting the Republican side, but he is not a "candidate to be reckoned with" in any sense of the words.
Okay... let me get this straight... the guy is garnering some 5 times the number of votes that Nader did in the past 2 elections... and he's meaningless?? I don't think so, Tim.

I don't doubt that in the spoiler role he is more like to steal votes from Pubs than Dems, but that's going to depend a lot on who gets the nominations.
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
No, Paul won't win the election. But neither will any other republican without the support of the Ron Paul crowd.

They will be forced to take up some of his issues if they ever hope to win again.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
CitizenKain's post is so incredibly (oh I'll just not say to be nice) I'm not even sure where to start other than if that's what people really think then we are in a hell of a lot more trouble than I ever thought we were.

I'll start with no boom-busts since the big busts called a depression. Ugh..... Well 1st there was a boom then there was the depression and as I already pointed out and as even Ben Bernanke has admitted the depression was indeed the fault of the Federal Reserve. Milton Friedman and the worlds leading economists all agree, the Fed was the leading cause of the Depression. I digress, so what you are saying the great "Boom" of the 1950's didn't happen. You know the "Baby boom"? I guess you don't realize that was a financial "boom" as well? Then of course you had the oil crisis in the mid 70's I guess you're saying that wasn't a "bust". Then directly after that you had a boom then in the mid 80's you had another bust with the savings and loan shake up. Then we boomed again and yet one more time during G H Bush we had another bust. After that small bust Clinton balanced the budget and technology got cool for everyone and we had a boom and of course in 01 we had a big bust. Now we have a boom for a very long time with the wonderful Fed providing such unbelievably candified rates for every bank who is FDIC insured gets damn near free money, all in the name of stimulating the boom.

Now of course we're going to have a nice big bust on our hands, oh boy. Yep I see what you're saying, no boom-busts since the depression.... UGH

That's just what I can think of off the top of my head too..... Wow..... Maybe you're just in denial.

Moving on how pants on head crazy North Korea is. Well to be honest we have crazy all over the place and it looks to most I think even here that if N Korea did go bat shit crazy S Korea could probably handle them. If not it's not like we can't provide aid to them.

Ugh and you bring World War 2 up as if we actually were interventionist. We were attacked in World War 2, maybe you just forgot. It was our non-intervention policy that made us the super nation we are now after ww2. Unfortunately it was our intervention throughout Germany and Europe that literally created Hitler's demonic Reich. Time to read some history I think.
Yes, it is time to read some history. We were providing substantial aid to England throughout the first years of the conflict. We were only non-interventionist in name. Hell that was even in Ken Burns' documentary. :) You won't even have to read.

I'm confused about your demonic reich statement - it was the european policy of appeasement towards Hitler that allowed him to launch his war, which is a completely opposite concept of intervention. Unless now you're talking about the EU, and if that is the case I would urge you to be very careful in your comparisons of any body or person to Hitler and Nazi germany.

Look at the origins of Nazi germany - economic devastation at the hands of the allies in WWI is the root cause. If you want more detail I suggest you read some of that history you've been talking about. Post-WW2 you had the Marshall plan, which spent enormous sums of US money to rebuild Germany. Where did that lead? To Germany becoming an economic power and model country in the world. In other words; Exhibit A: isolationism=world war. Exhibit B: reconstruction=oktoberfest.
Much better said than when I tried.
And just look where interventionism has gotten us. A fabulous war, angry Muslims with dynamite strapped to them, going broke policing the world. You're right, interventionism is wonderful! :roll:

I fail to see how pointing out Germany's success at our expense is a ringing endorsement of interventionism. Sounds to me like we'd be better off letting the terrorists win and enact the have Muhammed Plan to rebuild our country like we did for Germany. :thumbsup:
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: virginiakid
If Ron Paul was a loon, I hardly think he would have the endorsment of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, top pro-life advocate Norma McCorvey a.k.a. "Jane Roe" of Roe V Wade. Nor would he have the endorsment of Donald Luskin a top financial commentaor for CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckon with whether you like him or not.
5 - 8% of the population does not constitute a "candidate to be reckoned with."
What was the margin of victory in the popular vote in the last 2 elections?
Irrelevant to my statement. Ron Paul could play a fractional role in this election, most likely hurting the Republican side, but he is not a "candidate to be reckoned with" in any sense of the words.
Okay... let me get this straight... the guy is garnering some 5 times the number of votes that Nader did in the past 2 elections... and he's meaningless?? I don't think so, Tim.

I don't doubt that in the spoiler role he is more like to steal votes from Pubs than Dems, but that's going to depend a lot on who gets the nominations.
He's not a candidate to be reckoned with, he's somebody who, MAY (at best) have a chance of influencing the election but, right now, he's a nobody and, unlike Ralph Nader he wasn't in the national spotlight before he ran for president.
 

virginiakid

Junior Member
Jan 16, 2008
24
0
0
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
No, Paul won't win the election. But neither will any other republican without the support of the Ron Paul crowd.

They will be forced to take up some of his issues if they ever hope to win again.
And they already are. Ron Paul has already surprised many pundits. Why do you think there is a media blackout on him? Everyone has under estimated this man and the grassroots effort that has been built underneath him. I have never seen anything like it in my life. He has had a very strong showing in most states and placed 2nd in Nevada. He will probably do extrememly well in the west and maybe win one or two states out that way. Florida isn't a big deal to Ron Paul it seems. And to be honest that is probably a good thing for him, He can concentrate most of his efforts on the Super Tuesday states. Something tells me we are about to see something spectacular. A brokered convention? But we'll see after super Tuesday and see what happens.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: virginiakid
If Ron Paul was a loon, I hardly think he would have the endorsment of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, top pro-life advocate Norma McCorvey a.k.a. "Jane Roe" of Roe V Wade. Nor would he have the endorsment of Donald Luskin a top financial commentaor for CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckon with whether you like him or not.
He also has the endorsement of a large number of white supremacists and truther groups.

No, he's a joke.
I sure hope you don't support any of the other republican candidates, then, either. They're worse.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Pure libertarian ideas don't work in the real world - at least his take on them doesn't account for market externalities.
The whole FED thing is a huge red flag; anyone that subscribes to that BS shouldn't be taken seriously.

<- BS Economics, MA Finance
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: virginiakid
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
No, Paul won't win the election. But neither will any other republican without the support of the Ron Paul crowd.

They will be forced to take up some of his issues if they ever hope to win again.
And they already are. Ron Paul has already surprised many pundits. Why do you think there is a media blackout on him? Everyone has under estimated this man and the grassroots effort that has been built underneath him. I have never seen anything like it in my life. He has had a very strong showing in most states and placed 2nd in Nevada. He will probably do extrememly well in the west and maybe win one or two states out that way. Florida isn't a big deal to Ron Paul it seems. And to be honest that is probably a good thing for him, He can concentrate most of his efforts on the Super Tuesday states. Something tells me we are about to see something spectacular. A brokered convention? But we'll see after super Tuesday and see what happens.
On the other hand, he lost in NH, which has a large amount of Lolb supporters.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: halik
Pure libertarian ideas don't work in the real world
Says you.

Because they've worked so successfully in the rest of the world, keeping us in line with growth everywhere else. Ohh wait, they wont!

Pure libertarianism are for anti-establishment people who are afraid of changing times and internet experts with little to no practical knowledge. It's a scapegoat for people's inability to be successful and work within the system. They rail against the system in an anti-establishment zeal, saying it's wrong and corrupt. It's a utopian dream, similar to communism or leninist policies.

Sure, some libertarian policies, such as the achievement of limited government intervention in our lives, or a smaller government are reasonable. However, a complete hands-off economy, limited government services, no central-banking, no goods/services provided, and all of the other crap is pure wannabe-1800's thinking.

If you want to live in a 3rd world chaos country with poor services, go ahead and move to one. For me, I prefer a balance between your utopia and the utter oppressing government many try to install. If you fought for a balance rather than a utopia you'd get much farther with the rest of society. However, you stick yourself on the fringe and you get treated like fringe.

Many RP fans have yet to figure this out. Nobody wants a 3rd world country.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: virginiakid
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
No, Paul won't win the election. But neither will any other republican without the support of the Ron Paul crowd.

They will be forced to take up some of his issues if they ever hope to win again.
And they already are. Ron Paul has already surprised many pundits. Why do you think there is a media blackout on him? Everyone has under estimated this man and the grassroots effort that has been built underneath him. I have never seen anything like it in my life. He has had a very strong showing in most states and placed 2nd in Nevada. He will probably do extrememly well in the west and maybe win one or two states out that way. Florida isn't a big deal to Ron Paul it seems. And to be honest that is probably a good thing for him, He can concentrate most of his efforts on the Super Tuesday states. Something tells me we are about to see something spectacular. A brokered convention? But we'll see after super Tuesday and see what happens.
The media blackout? You mean the fact that Ron Paul receives no coverage because... he isn't that popular? Nah, that could never be it. Ron Paul is perfectly electable, but the big-bad media is putting him down because he wants to change the US government. :roll:
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Ron Paul is perfectly electable, but the big-bad media is putting him down because he wants to change the US government.
Couldn't agree more :thumbsup:

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Ron Paul is perfectly electable, but the big-bad media is putting him down because he wants to change the US government.
Couldn't agree more :thumbsup:
Face it, his ideas aren't popular. His campaign isn't popular. HE isn't popular. The guy has 5% of the country. That's it. He's generating lots of online buzz that he cannot translate into real votes and you expect the media to dedicate hours of time to this guy? Maybe they'd consider dedicating time to him if he started polling a little higher... like say in such a way that he wasn't dead last in the race.

Clinton was also an underdog during his campaign. He received almost no media attention, particularly after NH, yet came back to win the whole thing. Why? Because Clinton's ideas weren't stupid. Clinton was electable. Clinton had a personality. There are hundreds of reasons, but sure PCSurgeon, if you sleep better at night believing that the media has teamed up with our government (who exactly?) to put a stop to Ron Paul's campaign, then I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.

Ron Paulers are so blinded by his image that they cannot see the all-too obvious flaws in his policy that prevent him from even being remotely considered for the office of president.

Ron Paulism FTL.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Ron Paul is perfectly electable, but the big-bad media is putting him down because he wants to change the US government.
Couldn't agree more :thumbsup:
Face it, his ideas aren't popular. His campaign isn't popular. HE isn't popular. The guy has 5% of the country. That's it. He's generating lots of online buzz that he cannot translate into real votes and you expect the media to dedicate hours of time to this guy? Maybe they'd consider dedicating time to him if he started polling a little higher... like say in such a way that he wasn't dead last in the race.

Clinton was also an underdog during his campaign. He received almost no media attention, particularly after NH, yet came back to win the whole thing. Why? Because Clinton's ideas weren't stupid. Clinton was electable. Clinton had a personality. There are hundreds of reasons, but sure PCSurgeon, if you sleep better at night believing that the media has teamed up with our government (who exactly?) to put a stop to Ron Paul's campaign, then I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.

Ron Paulers are so blinded by his image that they cannot see the all-too obvious flaws in his policy that prevent him from even being remotely considered for the office of president.

Ron Paulism FTL.
Let me know when you get your head out of the sand. MSM is biased, pure and simple.

Everytime you hear about Paul you always have some stigma attached to it. Like "fringe" or "loon". If I was an undecided voter and was looking at candidates and all I heard was "this guys a loon" "he has no chance to win", I wouldn't want to be a "fringe supporter" and I would want to be a winner. MSM knows this and plays on the stupidity of people to take what they say as gospel. "It must be true the TV said it" mentality.

If everytime you saw Paul on TV and they talked about how wonderful he was, how he has been married for 53yrs, a ten term congressman who hasn't changed his principles for over 20+ yrs , showed the direction he wants to go to help America economically and the protection of liberties. I think we would see a substantial difference in votes toward Paul.

but no , those issues aren't as important to MSM, they support the statis quo, corporatist's and big government. If thats not what they are shoving down your throat you sure as hell will know what Brittany had for breakfast.

MSM has a vast amount of influence and that is impossible to deny.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY