Ron Paul on Larry King

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ron Paul is at 4% because most people in this country are too damn stupid to understand what he is saying.

They would rather be spoon fed the "facts" than have to think about anything for themselves.

That is why we continually end up with candidates who speak in nothing more than sound bites and who have no real plan for fixing any of our problems. They seek power solely for the sake of having power, not to actually serve the people.

Paul is at 4% because his message does not resonant with more people. The conspiracy, paranoia, and assertions that anyone who does not agree with Paul is an idiot and corrupt, that his followers use to explain why he is not more popular is nothing more than denial and rationalization.

Paul at 4% gets more media attention than anyone I know of at his polling numbers.

Just because you said it twice doesn't make it true.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ron Paul is at 4% because most people in this country are too damn stupid to understand what he is saying.

They would rather be spoon fed the "facts" than have to think about anything for themselves.

That is why we continually end up with candidates who speak in nothing more than sound bites and who have no real plan for fixing any of our problems. They seek power solely for the sake of having power, not to actually serve the people.

Considering most Ron Paul supporters line up for their regular injections of "truth" about the Federal Reserve, I don't know which side is more full of shit.

Face it, Ron Paul's message has many good components. It also has a few pretty wacky ideas in it that most people don't like or believe in. Calling those people sheep or putting quotes around the word facts to try and assert that there is some grand conspiracy here just further radicalizes your position.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ron Paul is at 4% because most people in this country are too damn stupid to understand what he is saying.

They would rather be spoon fed the "facts" than have to think about anything for themselves.

That is why we continually end up with candidates who speak in nothing more than sound bites and who have no real plan for fixing any of our problems. They seek power solely for the sake of having power, not to actually serve the people.

Paul is at 4% because his message does not resonant with more people. The conspiracy, paranoia, and assertions that anyone who does not agree with Paul is an idiot and corrupt, that his followers use to explain why he is not more popular is nothing more than denial and rationalization.

Paul at 4% gets more media attention than anyone I know of at his polling numbers.

Just because you said it twice doesn't make it true.

I changed it to include the "anyone who does not agree with Paul are idiots and corrupt" rational for Paul's low polling numbers that keeps coming up in Paul threads.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ron Paul is at 4% because most people in this country are too damn stupid to understand what he is saying.

They would rather be spoon fed the "facts" than have to think about anything for themselves.

That is why we continually end up with candidates who speak in nothing more than sound bites and who have no real plan for fixing any of our problems. They seek power solely for the sake of having power, not to actually serve the people.

Considering most Ron Paul supporters line up for their regular injections of "truth" about the Federal Reserve, I don't know which side is more full of shit.

Face it, Ron Paul's message has many good components. It also has a few pretty wacky ideas in it that most people don't like or believe in. Calling those people sheep or putting quotes around the word facts to try and assert that there is some grand conspiracy here just further radicalizes your position.

I'm not lining up for an injection of anyting...unless it is some really good whiskey.

Is Ron Paul 100% accurate? No. Is Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, McCain, etc, etc, etc? Not even close.

The difference is that Paul wants to do more than just sugar coat the problems and actually wants to do something about them. Can you say that about the other candidates? Like I said earlier, they seek power purely because they want power, not because they have some grand vision of what to do once they have it.

Sure they may have a thing or two they want to accomplish, health care for example, but the way this country is headed we need more than just a band-aid. We need something to shake the politics of this country to their very core. Something that will put all the politicians on notice that we are fed up and aren't going to be satisfied with the same old song and dance that got us into this shape in the first place.

Can Ron Paul do that? Not alone, but he can be the tip of the iceberg that shows people that by listening to more than 30 second sound bites, by actually taking the time to understand an issue and then hold their elected officials accountable for actually fixing our problems we, the people, can take our country back. That will not change overnight and to expect Paul to do it himself if elected is foolish, but like I said...there needs to be a catalyst that starts the fire for change.

Ask yourself this...right now does the government exist to serve the people or do the people exist to serve the government? I think you will find the latter to be the case if you really take the time to look at it.

Democrat? Republican? Doesn't matter, both parties are essentially the same these days and neither is truly interested in doing anything other than capturing power or preserving the power they already have.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Considering most Ron Paul supporters line up for their regular injections of "truth" about the Federal Reserve, I don't know which side is more full of shit.

Face it, Ron Paul's message has many good components. It also has a few pretty wacky ideas in it that most people don't like or believe in. Calling those people sheep or putting quotes around the word facts to try and assert that there is some grand conspiracy here just further radicalizes your position.

QFT.

From what I've seen, Ron Paul has a significant media share considering his low polling numbers.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ron Paul is at 4% because most people in this country are too damn stupid to understand what he is saying.

They would rather be spoon fed the "facts" than have to think about anything for themselves.

That is why we continually end up with candidates who speak in nothing more than sound bites and who have no real plan for fixing any of our problems. They seek power solely for the sake of having power, not to actually serve the people.

Considering most Ron Paul supporters line up for their regular injections of "truth" about the Federal Reserve, I don't know which side is more full of shit.

Face it, Ron Paul's message has many good components. It also has a few pretty wacky ideas in it that most people don't like or believe in. Calling those people sheep or putting quotes around the word facts to try and assert that there is some grand conspiracy here just further radicalizes your position.

If his BlinderBomber-proclaimed "wacky" ideas are so wacky, then Congress will never support those ideas if he were to propose them after explaining them. He's got more respect for the Constitution than any of the candidates- BY FAR. So even if he had the opportunity to push his agenda through forcefully without congress approval he wouldn't do it. That's just not his style and it wouldn't make sense after you study his long record as a Congressman.

And that's actually another plus to Paul, he lays everything out there in an honest manner. He lets you know his position on everything and what he would fight for, meanwhile the other candidates just tell you what they think you want to hear, and they say something different every other week. That's also besides the fact the other candidates all seem perfectly content with the status quo and would clearly not do anything to rock the boat like Ron Paul would do.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ron Paul is at 4% because most people in this country are too damn stupid to understand what he is saying.

They would rather be spoon fed the "facts" than have to think about anything for themselves.

That is why we continually end up with candidates who speak in nothing more than sound bites and who have no real plan for fixing any of our problems. They seek power solely for the sake of having power, not to actually serve the people.

:thumbsup: Well said.

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ron Paul is at 4% because most people in this country are too damn stupid to understand what he is saying.

They would rather be spoon fed the "facts" than have to think about anything for themselves.

That is why we continually end up with candidates who speak in nothing more than sound bites and who have no real plan for fixing any of our problems. They seek power solely for the sake of having power, not to actually serve the people.

Considering most Ron Paul supporters line up for their regular injections of "truth" about the Federal Reserve, I don't know which side is more full of shit.

Face it, Ron Paul's message has many good components. It also has a few pretty wacky ideas in it that most people don't like or believe in. Calling those people sheep or putting quotes around the word facts to try and assert that there is some grand conspiracy here just further radicalizes your position.

I'm not lining up for an injection of anyting...unless it is some really good whiskey.

Is Ron Paul 100% accurate? No. Is Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, McCain, etc, etc, etc? Not even close.

The difference is that Paul wants to do more than just sugar coat the problems and actually wants to do something about them. Can you say that about the other candidates? Like I said earlier, they seek power purely because they want power, not because they have some grand vision of what to do once they have it.

Sure they may have a thing or two they want to accomplish, health care for example, but the way this country is headed we need more than just a band-aid. We need something to shake the politics of this country to their very core. Something that will put all the politicians on notice that we are fed up and aren't going to be satisfied with the same old song and dance that got us into this shape in the first place.

Can Ron Paul do that? Not alone, but he can be the tip of the iceberg that shows people that by listening to more than 30 second sound bites, by actually taking the time to understand an issue and then hold their elected officials accountable for actually fixing our problems we, the people, can take our country back. That will not change overnight and to expect Paul to do it himself if elected is foolish, but like I said...there needs to be a catalyst that starts the fire for change.

Ask yourself this...right now does the government exist to serve the people or do the people exist to serve the government? I think you will find the latter to be the case if you really take the time to look at it.

Democrat? Republican? Doesn't matter, both parties are essentially the same these days and neither is truly interested in doing anything other than capturing power or preserving the power they already have.

You, sir, get another :thumbsup: .

 

[Moonbeam]

Ron Paul is a clown and I am an important person. I don't support clowns because important people laugh at them. I conform to anything that won't get laughed at. I do the laughing. I am important. I am not the piece of swill I was told I am. Important people are not deviate and flock.

 

[bamacre]

I have been telling my friends and family members about Paul, but I have just given them some general info, and sent them some links.

What I found is that the few of them that actually took some time to look into him, all now love him. The others who blew it off, didn't take the time to look, just say "well I'm supporting Joe Douchebag because blah blah blah."

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: lozina

If his BlinderBomber-proclaimed "wacky" ideas are so wacky, then Congress will never support those ideas if he were to propose them after explaining them. He's got more respect for the Constitution than any of the candidates- BY FAR. So even if he had the opportunity to push his agenda through forcefully without congress approval he wouldn't do it. That's just not his style and it wouldn't make sense after you study his long record as a Congressman.

And that's actually another plus to Paul, he lays everything out there in an honest manner. He lets you know his position on everything and what he would fight for, meanwhile the other candidates just tell you what they think you want to hear, and they say something different every other week. That's also besides the fact the other candidates all seem perfectly content with the status quo and would clearly not do anything to rock the boat like Ron Paul would do.

lozina
shinerburke

My point exactly. Ron Paul has painted himself as a real-life Cinncinatus - a man who sees a problem in America and almost unwillingly takes up the cause of the presidency to save the country. His well-crafted image has distanced himself from other candidates, portraying him as the unlikely savior of America versus the corrupt career politicians he faces. Around every corner is adversity or conspiracy and, while many rushes to defend him those who do so refuse to recognize they are as much under Ron Paul's spell as the Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, or Romney supporters are under their candidate's spell.

The difference is that Paul wants to do more than just sugar coat the problems and actually wants to do something about them. Can you say that about the other candidates? Like I said earlier, they seek power purely because they want power, not because they have some grand vision of what to do once they have it.

Like I said, this is the Cinncinatus delusion. There is no evidence Ron Paul is any more noble than other candidate besides his image. I'm glad you support him so much, because active involvement in the political process is good for America, but what makes RP more credible than Obama? Than Romney? Than (gulp) Huckabee? (I'd throw Hillary in here, but even I think she's full of shit ) He resonates with you, as an individual, but he clearly does not resonate with more than 8% of the general population.

Ron Paul has been in politics for around 30 years. He's a career politician. Just like Hillary. Just like Obama. Just like Romney. Just like Guliani. He's not as much of an outsider as many would like to believe and, while I think he genuinely desires to change the country, it doesn't mean that none of the other candidates want to.

We need something to shake the politics of this country to their very core.

And I can argue that what RP wants to do has NOTHING to do with shaking politics to its very core. Maybe his solutions are so drastically short-sighted that, ultimately, his presidency would set the country up for long-term failure or trouble.

Finally, I agree that Ron Paul's support is near-fanatical in its devotion. Those who follow his movement hang on his every word, can quote his interviews on the spot, and, generally, aren't the 30-second sound-bite crew. If, however, Ron Paul gains traction in this country it will be because of the 30-second group. All the front-runners have widespread support from that group, but there are a large number of well-educated, articulate individuals that support every major candidate. They are not as vocal as the RP supporters, especially online, but to doubt that the only people that back other candidates are idiots is playing right into the RP image.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Like I said, this is the Cinncinatus delusion. There is no evidence Ron Paul is any more noble than other candidate besides his image. I'm glad you support him so much, because active involvement in the political process is good for America, but what makes RP more credible than Obama? Than Romney? Than (gulp) Huckabee? (I'd throw Hillary in here, but even I think she's full of shit ) He resonates with you, as an individual, but he clearly does not resonate with more than 8% of the general population.

It's not an image. His long voting record as a Congressman shows clearly how he stays true to his word about upholding the core principles of the Constitution. Why do you think he is so widely known as "Dr. No" in Congress? He votes against extremely popular laws which make people feel all nice and warm to support solely because it's not the job of Congress under the limits described in the Constitution.

Try to find any clear consistency with Hillary's voting record for example- and good luck!

He also proves to be a great example of the frugal monetary policies he supports. He is one of the most frugal congressmen there ever were and he repeatedly does his job under budget and returns excess funds ot the Treasury. Look at how frugal his campaign is being run as well. Compare that to the debt most of the other candidates have incurred during their campaign. Ron Paul has no debt in his.

 

[bamacre]

BlinderBomber, you could not be more wrong. If you have done any homework on Paul, you'd know why.

 

[lozina]

Here's a good graphic on the candidates' campaign's funding, showing how much they raised, how much they spent, how much cash they have on hand, and how much debt they have

Now looking at these candidates and the way they handle the simple finances of their campaign- how do you think they will handle the government's budget as they go up on the podium and make all their promises about the economy?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: lozina
Here's a good graphic on the candidates' campaign's funding, showing how much they raised, how much they spent, how much cash they have on hand, and how much debt they have

Now looking at these candidates and the way they handle the simple finances of their campaign- how do you think they will handle the government's budget when they go up on the podium and make all their promises about the economy?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

I don't think those numbers include Q4.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: lozina
Here's a good graphic on the candidates' campaign's funding, showing how much they raised, how much they spent, how much cash they have on hand, and how much debt they have

Now looking at these candidates and the way they handle the simple finances of their campaign- how do you think they will handle the government's budget when they go up on the podium and make all their promises about the economy?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

I don't think those numbers include Q4.

Right- they are not posted for everyone yet. Should be end of this month I assume

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Maybe they didn't think he'd be enough of an audience draw to justify the airtime. Remember, the Ron Paul supporters are only a small fraction of voters in the USA.

also rememeber most of his supporters don`t watch larry King......they watch transafromers or Dragon Ballz....lol

:laugh:

That's funny, because you and JEDI are the ones usually acting like children in RP threads. You're nothing more than a troll, really.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

Ron Paul is at 4% because most people in this country are too damn stupid to understand what he is saying.

That's a good reason not to put him on TV.

Yeah, unfrotunately reporters are only responsible to their employers, who are responsible to $$$ - it is rare to hear much candor or differing opinions these days unless those with the message can be understand by the masses.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Maybe they didn't think he'd be enough of an audience draw to justify the airtime. Remember, the Ron Paul supporters are only a small fraction of voters in the USA.

also rememeber most of his supporters don`t watch larry King......they watch transafromers or Dragon Ballz....lol

:laugh:

That's funny, because you and JEDI are the ones usually acting like children in RP threads. You're nothing more than a troll, really.

We all know RP doesn't stand a chance at getting voted in, but IMO he does have some great ideas that I hope get adoped later on when this young country growns up some more.

So really since he doesn't stand a chance, Jedi and Company are just guys who had their ass beat multiple times back in school and now take it out on anything popular with other people. It's a very common psychology.

 

[nageov3t]

keep telling everyone who doesn't like ron paul that they're too stupid to get it.

it's a good way of winning people over.

or, you know, something.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: loki8481
keep telling everyone who doesn't like ron paul that they're too stupid to get it.

it's a good way of winning people over.

or, you know, something.

Hey, it's the message not the man.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Ron Paul on Larry King 1-3-08 (UNAIRED)

Was this not aired? It seems to indicate it wasn't. Censorship works great for those in power. Cowards.

It's all about ratings. The only people that are buying what Ron Paul is selling are the people that don't have any money.

Which explains why Ron Paul raised so much funding last quarter with the two money bombs, doesn't it?

Replacing 20,000,000 piggy banks will stimulate the economy a little bit.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: bamacre
BlinderBomber, you could not be more wrong. If you have done any homework on Paul, you'd know why.

I don't see how I "could be more wrong." Many Ron Paul supporters have bought into his image hook, line, and sinker. They follow his word unquestioningly and use his word, his ideas, etc to attack the enemy - the mainstream media. When supporters of a candidate accuse others of "rather be[ing] spoon fed the 'facts' than have to think about anything for themselves" it really shows the strength of what I'm saying: most Ron Paul supporters are guilty of what they accuse everyone else of - falling victim to a message, an ideology, and a rigid way of thinking about things.

The political process is a two-way street and there is nothing about Ron Paul that gives any Ron Paul fan the right to accuse everyone else of being stupid or ignorant. Ron Paul is not necessarily America's savior and, based on how unpopular he has been so far this election, most of America agrees. Accuse the American public of being stupid or of being sheep, but ultimately you're just denying the truth - however honest Ron Paul is, however much he has the country's interests at heart, and however much he isn't a power-grabber, his message does not ring true for most Americans.

Instead of facing up to the fact Ron Paul has shown he has some electi-bility issues, Ron Paul fans place the blame elsewhere. In fact, it seems as though they're willing to place the blame anywhere but with the candidate himself. Part of being president is convincing about 1/2 of America that you are worthy of being elected. Ron Paul has been completely, utterly incapable of addressing this issue in his candidacy. Certainly, some candidates go too far trying to please everyone (John Kerry comes to mind), but being elected is a game and, so far, Ron Paul sucks at it.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
however honest Ron Paul is, however much he has the country's interests at heart, and however much he isn't a power-grabber, his message does not ring true for most Americans.

Again, you are basing this on the premise that all Americans even know who he is let alone what he stands for. And that's exactly the reason we criticize the media. Also if Ron Paul does get mentioned in the media his name is always preceded with some loaded word like "Longshot", or their "political expert analysts" footnote their commentary of Ron Paul with something like a "not that he could ever be elected" which forces their opinion of being un-electable onto the viewers.


Longshot Ron Paul

Why is the media trying to influence opinion like that? Do you think that is fair? They've been doing stuff like that for as long as I remember them reporting on the candidates.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
however honest Ron Paul is, however much he has the country's interests at heart, and however much he isn't a power-grabber, his message does not ring true for most Americans.

Again, you are basing this on the premise that all Americans even know who he is let alone what he stands for. And that's exactly the reason we criticize the media. Also if Ron Paul does get mentioned in the media his name is always preceded with some loaded word like "Longshot", or their "political expert analysts" footnote their commentary of Ron Paul with something like a "not that he could ever be elected" which forces their opinion of being un-electable onto the viewers.


Longshot Ron Paul

Why is the media trying to influence opinion like that? Do you think that is fair? They've been doing stuff like that for as long as I remember them reporting on the candidates.

You mean that you're upset that media outlets call it like they see it? Most of those articles lie in one of two categories: articles written before Ron Paul started pulling in lots of money and articles written after the Iowa and NH primaries, where Ron Paul fell flat on his face. Before he started his financing, Ron Paul WAS a long-shot candidate. You can't slice it any other way. After Ron Paul got decimated in NH and Iowa, he has returned to being a long-shot candidate.

Look at Bill Clinton. He, too, was a longshot candidate, particularly after Iowa and NH, but managed to storm back and take the election. If the media is to blame for Ron Paul's demise, how did Bill Clinton overcome such insurmountable odds?

 

[BoberFett]

After two primaries Paul is doing better than Giuliani. Do they refer to him as a longshot?