Ron Paul and the Media

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
I have read a number of posts implying that the media is actively not covering Paul because he challenges the status quo. I disagree.

The media would love Paul if he ever at this stage in the election cycle reaches over 20% in a scientifically conducted poll or comes in second place in a primary. It would be a great story for them. Except for Paul, all the Republicans running are boring and predictable. They pretty much sound like GWB phase II.

Paul is talking about major changes in the role of the FED government. ABC, NBC, CNN, et al are right now dreaming of an 2008 election with Paul running against a Democrat.

Paul is challenging the Republican status quo more than anybody in the last century, including Goldwater.

I can see the daily news reports and the Sunday news talk shows about Paul's election run:

1. Republicans scrambling.
2. An election that offers a choice between different philosophies about the proper role of the Federal government.

As someone who has been following US politics since I was 14, I look forward to Paul winning the Republican nomination and running for US president. I predict if he did well enough in this election cycle but was not nominated he would run again in 2012.

What do you think
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

Agreed.

And it is obvious the media does whatever it can to ignore Paul. If they ever admit to Paul winning debates through their own polling mechanisms they always insert comments about how Paul supporters must be some super elite hacking squad or that they are "re-dialing" the phone centers despite the fact if you try to re-dial you get a message that you cannot vote again. Really, the only time they cover Paul is during a debate, and there are already two debates I can remember where the organizers desperately tried to exclude Paul from being invited.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

They would cover Paul like white on rice because they would increase their ratings and thus make more money.

I started this thread to address the idea the media is against Paul because somehow he threatens the status quo. The media covers the front runners because by definition their audience is most interested in them.

If Paul was a communist or a Nazi and a front runner he would still get the media time.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

They would cover Paul like white on rice because they would increase their ratings and thus make more money.

I started this thread to address the idea the media is against Paul because somehow he threatens the status quo. The media covers the front runners because by definition their audience is most interested in them.

If Paul was a communist or a Nazi and a front runner he would still get the media time.


As communists and nazi's are collectivists, I agree with you :D

I understand your logic behind the idea they would cover him. But imo politics trumps all in this race. They simply cant risk having their agenda pushed back 4 years by giving this guy coverage.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

They would cover Paul like white on rice because they would increase their ratings and thus make more money.

I started this thread to address the idea the media is against Paul because somehow he threatens the status quo. The media covers the front runners because by definition their audience is most interested in them.

If Paul was a communist or a Nazi and a front runner he would still get the media time.

You seem to have this romantic idea that the media are beholden to the population and they will do anything to satisfy their desires, but the media is run by large corporations. These corporations have many stockholders to worry about and employ massive PR divisions to ensure their stockholders investments will pay off. They would not think it wise for some short time rating boost by propping someone like Ron Paul up who would probably do whatever he can to cripple that media corporation's power. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot just to get a few laughs from nearby friends.

 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

They would cover Paul like white on rice because they would increase their ratings and thus make more money.

I started this thread to address the idea the media is against Paul because somehow he threatens the status quo. The media covers the front runners because by definition their audience is most interested in them.

If Paul was a communist or a Nazi and a front runner he would still get the media time.

You seem to have this romantic idea that the media are beholden to the population and they will do anything to satisfy their desires, but the media is run by large corporations. These corporations have many stockholders to worry about and employ massive PR divisions to ensure their stockholders investments will pay off. They would not think it wise for some short time rating boost by propping someone like Ron Paul up who would probably do whatever he can to cripple that media corporation's power. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot just to get a few laughs from nearby friends.


You think Paul would do something media corporations? Wouldn't that be government interference in business, which is something his platform is against?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

They would cover Paul like white on rice because they would increase their ratings and thus make more money.

I started this thread to address the idea the media is against Paul because somehow he threatens the status quo. The media covers the front runners because by definition their audience is most interested in them.

If Paul was a communist or a Nazi and a front runner he would still get the media time.

You seem to have this romantic idea that the media are beholden to the population and they will do anything to satisfy their desires, but the media is run by large corporations. These corporations have many stockholders to worry about and employ massive PR divisions to ensure their stockholders investments will pay off. They would not think it wise for some short time rating boost by propping someone like Ron Paul up who would probably do whatever he can to cripple that media corporation's power. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot just to get a few laughs from nearby friends.

you and GenX really need to sit down and hash out whether the "media" is this mass socialist network that wants hillary in power at any cost or a mass conservative conspiracy that will do whatever it takes to put a pro-business republican in power.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

They would cover Paul like white on rice because they would increase their ratings and thus make more money.

I started this thread to address the idea the media is against Paul because somehow he threatens the status quo. The media covers the front runners because by definition their audience is most interested in them.

If Paul was a communist or a Nazi and a front runner he would still get the media time.

You seem to have this romantic idea that the media are beholden to the population and they will do anything to satisfy their desires, but the media is run by large corporations. These corporations have many stockholders to worry about and employ massive PR divisions to ensure their stockholders investments will pay off. They would not think it wise for some short time rating boost by propping someone like Ron Paul up who would probably do whatever he can to cripple that media corporation's power. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot just to get a few laughs from nearby friends.

you and GenX really need to sit down and hash out whether the "media" is this mass socialist network that wants hillary in power at any cost or a mass conservative conspiracy that will do whatever it takes to put a pro-business republican in power.

I think our stance is very clear, where are you confused?
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

They would cover Paul like white on rice because they would increase their ratings and thus make more money.

I started this thread to address the idea the media is against Paul because somehow he threatens the status quo. The media covers the front runners because by definition their audience is most interested in them.

If Paul was a communist or a Nazi and a front runner he would still get the media time.

You seem to have this romantic idea that the media are beholden to the population and they will do anything to satisfy their desires, but the media is run by large corporations. These corporations have many stockholders to worry about and employ massive PR divisions to ensure their stockholders investments will pay off. They would not think it wise for some short time rating boost by propping someone like Ron Paul up who would probably do whatever he can to cripple that media corporation's power. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot just to get a few laughs from nearby friends.


You think Paul would do something media corporations? Wouldn't that be government interference in business, which is something his platform is against?

Well, for example he would probably do things like end the exclusive press privleges that the current administration has, where only certain members of the press are given access to press conferences in the white house. All he has to do is take away, not enforce or restrict
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Originally posted by: loki8481

you and GenX really need to sit down and hash out whether the "media" is this mass socialist network that wants hillary in power at any cost or a mass conservative conspiracy that will do whatever it takes to put a pro-business republican in power.

Those two examples are mutually exclusive? Hillary, Guiliani, McCain, Obama... while they may vary in a few inconsequential issues (at least IMO, that is) they all want to maintain the current status quo. none of them dare to "rock the boat"
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

They would cover Paul like white on rice because they would increase their ratings and thus make more money.

I started this thread to address the idea the media is against Paul because somehow he threatens the status quo. The media covers the front runners because by definition their audience is most interested in them.

If Paul was a communist or a Nazi and a front runner he would still get the media time.

You seem to have this romantic idea that the media are beholden to the population and they will do anything to satisfy their desires, but the media is run by large corporations. These corporations have many stockholders to worry about and employ massive PR divisions to ensure their stockholders investments will pay off. They would not think it wise for some short time rating boost by propping someone like Ron Paul up who would probably do whatever he can to cripple that media corporation's power. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot just to get a few laughs from nearby friends.

I have no romantic illusions about the press. The media does give the front runners more attention. I can not think of an example in the last 60 years where the press, working in unison, ignored a front runner. Please provide an example of this.

How does Paul threaten the large corporate owned media? I would expect a smaller central government would meant fewer regulations and taxes which would mean more profits.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
I'm sorry... who owns "the media"??

How does Paul threaten the large corporate owned media? I would expect a smaller central government would meant fewer regulations and taxes which would more profits.
Naive moron. How could a "smaller central government" give GE the defense contracts it needs? You spout "regulations" without even realizing what comes with them, don't you? Stick to smaller words.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I think the OP forgot a decimal point. Baby steps... 1.5% first... THEN 15%.

Corporate lobbying doesn't exist in the OP's world.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm sorry... who owns "the media"??

How does Paul threaten the large corporate owned media? I would expect a smaller central government would meant fewer regulations and taxes which would more profits.
Naive moron. How could a "smaller central government" give GE the defense contracts it needs? You spout "regulations" without even realizing what comes with them, don't you? Stick to smaller words.


Moron?

Please go flame another thread.

GO AWAY!
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Can we just have one Ron Paul thread?

The guy has NO chance at all and yet a bunch of people run around like he is the second coming.

Btw? THAT is why he gets no coverage. Is it the media?s job to promote one candidate over the others? (discounting the HUGE bias in time spent covering Hillary, Obama and Edwards vs the Republicans.)
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Watching the news today, fox ran a clip of huckabee's debate toward Ron Paul but excluded Ron's impending response from being aired. This is the type of media that we do not need. Shaping (spinning) the content to allow only what they want you to see, which impairs the viewers perception in decision making. This is deliberate and unfair reporting practices.

Here is a report that shows some homework done on the issues. Something we can't say other candidates have done.

Huckabee Takes Unfair Shots at Ron Paul

In an effort to boost his media exposure, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has tried to discredit Rep. Ron Paul's responses in the GOP debate Wednesday in New Hampshire.
Thursday, Huckabee called Texas Rep. Paul's comments during the debate "ludicrous" and "unacceptable." The former Arkansas governor conflated a previous debate comment with Wednesday's debate to suggest that Paul blamed America for 9/11.

Has Paul made "ludicrous" statements? I decided to look at what he's said in the debates and do some fact-checking.

It turns out Ron Paul had to set the record straight early in the debate after Fox News' moderators misquoted him, suggesting that he wanted citizens to be able to carry guns on airplanes to thwart attacks. Not true, said Paul. His actual words were: "Responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government, not the passengers." Paul favors small government and private responsibility.

Next came the question that prompted the comments Huckabee objects to so much. Chris Wallace asked Paul if he would pull troops from Iraq in spite of predictions of a bloodbath, al Qaeda camps and death for U.S. supporters in Iraq.

Paul's spirited answer: "The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them?"

He was alluding to Vice President Dick Cheney's prediction that we'd be greeted in Iraq "with candy and flowers." Paul Wolfowitz, a former Bush aide, claimed that Iraqi oil would pay for the entire war, and some estimates were as low as a few billion dollars. Larry Lindsey, Bush's former economic adviser, was severely criticized for saying the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. It has surpassed $700 billion to date.

How can Huckabee call Paul's statement "ludicrous" when the facts speak so strongly to the contrary? The Bush administration hasn't gotten anything right in Iraq: no al Qaeda connection, no weapons of mass destruction, no cost to the taxpayer -- the list goes on and on.

In that same segment, Paul repeated an assertion from a previous debate: "The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11." True or not true?

Al Qaeda did issue a fatwa -- a judgment on Islamic law -- saying the United States committed three "crimes": military occupation of the Arabian peninsula, U.S. aggression against Iraqis, and U.S. support for Israel and refusal to recognize Palestinians.

In a prior debate, Paul mentioned Michael Scheuer, a former CIA agent and chief of the agency's bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999. Scheuer, a bin Laden expert whose books include Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America and Imperial Hubris, defended Paul's statements at a May 24 press conference and confirmed that al Qaeda's response is blowback from bad policy in the Middle East.

And yet, Paul's remarks are somehow ludicrous and unacceptable? I don't think so, and neither does his camp. I spoke with Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, who said, "It's unfortunate that Mike Huckabee would demagogue on such an important issue."

Paul commented further on the war in Iraq. First, he decried going to war without first declaring war. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president declare war by making a request to Congress. We haven't had a formal war declaration since World War II.

Second, he asserted that the Iraq war is illegal under international law. War may be waged if approved by the U.N. Security Council, if it's sought as a matter of self-defense, or if it's a response to an overwhelming humanitarian emergency. None of these apply in Iraq. The U.N. Security Council's nine members didn't approve of our invasion, nor was the war in self-defense. Humanitarian grounds also falls short as an excuse for the invasion.

So, were Paul's comment ludicrous and unacceptable? Hardly. The record from the debate is clear: Paul has his facts straight. I'm not sure this can be said for the other candidates on the stage Wednesday night. - By John Fout



 

morkinva

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 1999
3,656
0
71
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can we just have one Ron Paul thread?

The guy has NO chance at all and yet a bunch of people run around like he is the second coming.

Btw? THAT is why he gets no coverage. Is it the media?s job to promote one candidate over the others? (discounting the HUGE bias in time spent covering Hillary, Obama and Edwards vs the Republicans.)

No we cannot have just one thread, it is insufficient to retain the passion people have for this man. And Ron represents a clear threat to the power structure which the MSM cowardly and fearfully kowtows to.

On a side note, Ron Paul will apparently be a 'guest' on Bill O'Blowhard Monday. Be nice to your guests, Bill.

edit>sp
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Ron represents a clear threat to the power structure? How, exactly, does carrying out his platform of removing essentially any and all restrictions on the market do anything but enhance the status quo of big money dominating politics and the public discourse? It seems apparent to me that of all the forces at play in Washington, the one that has both parties by the short curlies are the special moneyed interests; big business. Each side has their own favorite supporters; the firearm industry pay right wing pawns, the electronics industry pays left wing lackeys, but all the same, corporate money fuels them both.

What, precisely, is Ron Paul doing that will change the status quo? Is he going to increase regulations on corporations to take money out of the decision making arena? Of course not, that runs contrary to his libertarian ideology. Is he going to restrict what contributions politicians can receive? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me, telling people what they can and cannot do with their money. End corporate wealthfare? Maybe, but all that does is cut the industries that don't have much money to throw around anyway out of the equation like airlines and so forth, but they aren't the movers and shakers of Washington anyway. No, it is the highly profitable industries that get things done on Capitol Hill; electronics, pharmaceuticals, oil, defense, and others.

Unless one can make a compelling argument that these industries will suddenly cease being ultra-profitable in a more free market, Ron Paul won't change anything. That's the funny thing about libertarians and the Ron Paul supporters; forever talking about how they are going to shake up the system, turn everything on its head and their master solution to reform is to let the people pulling the strings keep pulling the strings with even fewer restrictions than reform. "The more things change, the more they stay the same"; I've never seen someone make that a goal of their ideology before but that seems to be the Ron Paul solution; change everything by keeping it exactly as it is.

EDIT: And while I'm at it, if Ron Paul does have the big ideas to change the status quo, how precisely is he going to get it past the 535 elected representatives who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Considering the legislature puts forward the bills and can override vetoes, what can he do if he does threaten the powers that be? It occurs to me were he an actual threat to the current system, the best he could hope for is to be a lame duck president who accomplishes nothing his entire term while those he threatens continue on around him, buying votes from the right legislators, sponsoring each other's pork, and generally being politicians. Even if he did, through divine intervention as that is the only way it is going to happen, win the presidency, Ron Paul does not have a magic wand and therefore he cannot wave it to give you your free country; he has force it through a system designed to prevent those kinds of reforms. How do you propose he do it?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: morkinva
On a side note, Ron Paul will apparently be a 'guest' on Bill O'Blowhard Monday. Be nice to your guests, Bill.

Bill is gonna tear him up :laugh:



 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: morkinva
On a side note, Ron Paul will apparently be a 'guest' on Bill O'Blowhard Monday. Be nice to your guests, Bill.

Bill is gonna tear him up :laugh:
Probably on direct orders from Roger Ailes.

 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Ron represents a clear threat to the power structure? How, exactly, does carrying out his platform of removing essentially any and all restrictions on the market do anything but enhance the status quo of big money dominating politics and the public discourse? It seems apparent to me that of all the forces at play in Washington, the one that has both parties by the short curlies are the special moneyed interests; big business. Each side has their own favorite supporters; the firearm industry pay right wing pawns, the electronics industry pays left wing lackeys, but all the same, corporate money fuels them both.



First of all...Paul supports FULL DISCLOSURE on all political donations...meaning all donations to every candidate/political party will be published on the internet for everyone in country to see. It will then be left to the voters to decide of their politician is "bought and paid for" by any special interest group...and if so, to voice their disapproval in the next election.

Secondly, all of the lobbying that corporations are doing has only done because it has been EFFECTIVE. Pork-filled bills have been passing in record numbers because no president (democrat or republican) has had the courage to veto this garbage. You know Paul will be different.. Every industry...big oil...big pharma...whatever, will soon realize their lobbying efforts are pointless with a man like Paul in the White House...because he will certainly VETO each and every bill that involves a direct transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations, or any other special interest group.

True, there will be fewer restrictions against political donations...but with the power of the executive branch in a libertarian's hands, this won't matter...because all unconstitutional spending and corporate welfare will never make it past the veto pen. And with the bully pulpit at his disposal, any attempts by congress to override his veto can EASILY be met with a press conference on national TV...on every major network, with Paul explaining the situation and exposing the high-reaching corruption in both parties. He is a straight shooter and will tell it like it is. The scum in who have sold their souls (and votes) to corporations will not survive long once they are exposed in the national limelight, and Paul is the only one with the guts to do this.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
First of all...Paul supports FULL DISCLOSURE on all political donations...meaning all donations to every candidate/political party will be published on the internet for everyone in country to see. It will then be left to the voters to decide of their politician is "bought and paid for" by any special interest group...and if so, to voice their disapproval in the next election.
Who in America really doubts any of the politicians up for selection are bought and paid for? What does that change? In realistic terms, we have a Democrat politician bought and paid for by their supporters and a Republican politician bought and paid for by their supporters. We all know it to be true, I won't claim every politician in Washington is in the pocket of one corporation or another but I have no doubts it would only be a slight exaggeration if I did.
Secondly, all of the lobbying that corporations are doing has only done because it has been EFFECTIVE. Pork-filled bills have been passing in record numbers because no president (democrat or republican) has had the courage to veto this garbage. You know Paul will be different.. Every industry...big oil...big pharma...whatever, will soon realize their lobbying efforts are pointless with a man like Paul in the White House...because he will certainly VETO each and every bill that involves a direct transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations, or any other special interest group.
No, he won't. Why? Because congress will couple them with bills he cannot afford to veto, and if he did, they would get the override. Who could possibly object to the twenty billion in pork attached in riders to the bill that opens the treasury to pay the wages of our soldiers? How can one possibly veto the earmarks for useless crap in the middle of nowhere when the only way it doesn't get passed is if you veto funding for children, children with diseases? Contrary to popular belief (and the mountain of evidence growing ever larger), congress is not stupid. They will submit their pork on the back of necessary bills and if they are vetoed, they will override.
True, there will be fewer restrictions against political donations...but with the power of the executive branch libertarian hands, this won't matter...because all unconstitutional spending and corporate welfare will never make it past the veto pen.
They won't have to, the 535 corporate shills bought and paid for by special interest groups will easily have the super-majority they needed to get around it. I have yet to see a way for Ron Paul to get around this problem; if congress really wants to it can almost ignore the executive branch entirely.
EDIT:
And with the bully pulpit at his disposal, any attempts by congress to override his veto can EASILY be met with a press conference on national TV...on every major network, with Paul explaining the situation and exposing the high-reaching corruption in both parties. He is a straight shooter and will tell it like it is. The scum in who have sold their souls (and votes) to corporations will not survive long once they are exposed in the national limelight, and Paul is the only one with the guts to do this.
Sure they will. Congress gets their pork projects exposed all the time. All of them are public record. The thing is nobody cares enough to do anything about it. If one set of shills gets voted out for pork spending, the next set going in will be bought by the same guys who owned the first group. Further, considering the media is one of the special interests who likes having influence in Washington, what makes you think they will paint Ron Paul's position in anything other than the worst possible light? They will bring on his opponents, they will point out his vetoing aid for orphans with diseases, and they will smear the crap out of him for everything he vetoed along with the pork.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Congress gets their pork projects exposed all the time. All of them are public record. The thing is nobody cares enough to do anything about it. If one set of shills gets voted out for pork spending, the next set going in will be bought by the same guys who owned the first group.

QFT. :thumbsup: