• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul Media Blackout Confirmed

dirtpoorchris said:
I just hope Ron Paul is sincere and legit. It would suck to find out RP is also in league with the beginings of the "NWO" and is simply their last trump card. A "false prophet" in a sense.
Click to expand...

Oh sweet Jesus-tap dancing-Christ. Are the Masons still pulling strings too?
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Paul supporters bitch and moan about this constantly, and keep forgetting that their candidate was not the only one who has not had much attention. Apparently, only their candidate is getting shut out, and that it has nothing to do with how many people react with "meh."
Click to expand...

Well if he was dead last in polls and near dead last then yeah, I would understand. But when you're in top teir status and they go out of there way to ignore you....we have a problem. The highest polling, least covered candidate.



Yes, i got more from where that came from. Just spreading it incrementally...

Wouldn't it be awesome, goldman sachs vs goldman sachs :-D
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
Again, with all due respect to Paul's supporters, he may come close or win straw polls, but he never goes beyond a certain percentage of supporters. You may chalk it up to the lack of attention he gets, but some of his positions are outside the mainstream of Republican support, the party he defaults to, and that will limit his ability to capture the nomination. For instance, they don't want to hear America's foreign policy invited the attack on 9/11.
Click to expand...

I get this is the media's standard excuse for suppressing the Paul vote, but that is not how it actually works. Let me explain to you how this plays out in reality:

*Ron Paul at 1%*
Media: This candidate clearly stands no chance of breaking through and so we can ignore him. (seemingly reasonable)
*Ron Paul at 5%*
Media: He needs to get more than that to be a serious contender. There is no reason to believe he can win a single state, let alone the nomination and so we can ignore him. (still somewhat logical)
*Ron Paul at 10%*
Media: Maybe he has a very devoted pool of supporters but there is no indication that can build those numbers up to where he can win a race and so we can ignore him. (Becoming a lot less credible)
*Ron Paul at 15%*
Media: Republicans will never accept a candidate like this. We have seen no evidence that he can expand his base of support beyond his few loyal followers and so we can ignore him. (bordering on desperation)

Their tactics have become so obvious that you can basically tell where it will go at higher levels. Honestly, I have given this thought and I think with the media campaign against Paul he would have to get nothing but straight wins through Florida for them to begin treating him seriously. We would probably see arguments like "Paul put a lot of money into this small state using a caucus that is more ideal for his organizational capabilities and devoted supporters and he will likely not be able to replicate these results in a primary" were he to win Iowa. A win in Iowa and New Hampshire would probably be greeted with remarks like "he is unlikely going to be able to replicate these results in larger state primaries so these results do not really mean anything" despite the nominee traditionally winning one of those states.

Fiddytree said:
Paul supporters bitch and moan about this constantly, and keep forgetting that their candidate was not the only one who has not had much attention.
Click to expand...

Not having much attention is different from a blatantly obvious blackout on a candidate regardless of that candidate's place in the polls.

Apparently, only their candidate is getting shut out, and that it has nothing to do with how many people react with "meh."
Click to expand...

Other candidates get shut out for sure, but the media at least can point to poll numbers in those cases. However, Ron Paul can be getting double digit support yet come dead last in media coverage and debate time. It amazes me how someone can look at those figures or the completely different reactions to straw poll results favoring Cain compared to those favoring Paul and still appeal to some bizarre notion that a for-profit industry dependent on big business for funding and good relations with the political elite for access would still somehow be looking out for the interests of the people at large.
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
I know it may be hard to tell the difference with all the flashy graphics and obsession over statistics from the news media, but politics isn't a sport Hatuey. Also, sports coverage doesn't go out of its way to conceal what team came in third.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. The same applies for everything else in life. Who is the #5 mp3 player maker in the world? What about the #4th biggest retail chain in the world? Maybe you could tell us which chain is 2 spots behind McDonald's on fast food? Do you think if those guys were in the news more often, they'd sell more? No. Appeal is the issue at hand. I'm surprised that the great "Demon of Light" didn't get that appeal is the word of the day when it comes to politics, business, economics etc. Ron Paul? Appeals to a few teenagers and fat Libertarians. Romney and Perry appeal to the GOP.
 
Last edited:
why are you comparing a mass market worldwide businesses with hundreds of competitors to a short race with only 8 people? Fact is Paul is last in coverage yet was in the same position in polls as everyone else who gets headline coverage. They're not there to pick our candidates for us but to report the news. He gets 1st, 2nd, 3rd yet they ignore him either way. How you can take Bachmann seriously and not Paul is beyond human comprehension.

Well whatever, we've been vindicated even though we didn't need a scientific poll to tell us the that.
If you don't believe it, fine.
But it is truth whether you want to believe it or not.

Agree to disagree.

Not like it matters anymore, we've been doing it without the same coverage as the other candidates yet our numbers grows. The other gop candidates are doing a better job at helping our cause anyway.

Tbh, I'm already use to it that it only slightly bothers me now. There is a new one each day so I try not to bother with it.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ <-donate to black this out campaign :-3 Up to 2.2 mil
 
Last edited:
I wish they would give him more time during the debates. The outlandish things he says are a hoot.

One of the funniest was that a border fence with Mexico was designed to keep Americans IN !! Only Ron Paul would say something that ignorant.
 
Demon of Light said:
*Ron Paul at 15%*
Media: Republicans will never accept a candidate like this. We have seen no evidence that he can expand his base of support beyond his few loyal followers and so we can ignore him.
Click to expand...

That statement is true. Another of his outlying opinions that did make news this time around, legalizing heroin. A vast number of GOP voters are law-and-order and will never buy that either. They believe in the war on drugs will fight hard against legalizing pot. Legal heroin? Unimaginable to them.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul is the same dude saying the same stuff from four years ago. The only difference is that he is four years older. He is a known quantity. He's not worthy of news coverage because, simply put, he's not news. But it's true that he's a hell of a lot smarter than morons like Bachmann and Santorum, and a better debater than the likes of Perry.
 
Gill said:
I wish they would give him more time during the debates. The outlandish things he says are a hoot.

One of the funniest was that a border fence with Mexico was designed to keep Americans IN !! Only Ron Paul would say something that ignorant.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said. He said the DOWNSIDE of a border fence would be that it could be potentially be used to keep Americans in, as well as keep illegals out, which is true. The installation of a border fence, like other forms of strict immigration enforcement - reduces movement and population flow, and commerce across a political border in BOTH DIRECTIONS.

He was not in support of a fence that keeps us in. The real ignorance lies in people not being able to read or listen carefully.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
That's not what he said. He said the DOWNSIDE of a border fence would be that it could be potentially be used to keep Americans in, as well as keep illegals out, which is true. The installation of a border fence, like other forms of strict immigration enforcement - reduces movement and population flow, and commerce across a political border in BOTH DIRECTIONS.

He was not in support of a fence that keeps us in. The real ignorance lies in people not being able to read or listen carefully.
Click to expand...

Same thing. It's still an absurd comment. I haven't heard of too many Americans sneaking across the border to Mexico.

The exact quote leaves little doubt:

“Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”
Click to expand...

He's not much better than the "rent's too damn high" guy.
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
That statement is true. Another of his outlying opinions that did make news this time around, legalizing heroin. A vast number of GOP voters are law-and-order and will never buy that either. They believe in the war on drugs will fight hard against legalizing pot. Legal heroin? Unimaginable to them.
Click to expand...

There is a very large constituency among Republicans that support legalizing drugs, a constituency much larger than the support Ron Paul gets presently. I imagine there is also a considerable number who, in addition, would support a candidate in spite of such a position. Not to mention independents and Democrats who might vote in a primary or caucus. The reality of the situation is that none of his supposedly controversial positions are going to impede his candidacy. His approval ratings show that he has potential support well above what is necessary to win the nomination and polls indicate he would also stand a very good chance of winning the presidency.

It is not his positions that have kept him low in polls. Honestly, go back to the OP and consider the implication of those figures. For someone who gets so little time in the media to be so high in the polls must tell you that he has more room to grow.

StillBallin75 said:
Ron Paul is the same dude saying the same stuff from four years ago. The only difference is that he is four years older. He is a known quantity. He's not worthy of news coverage because, simply put, he's not news. But it's true that he's a hell of a lot smarter than morons like Bachmann and Santorum, and a better debater than the likes of Perry.
Click to expand...

Romney is a known quantity in every respect, including his known flip-flopping. The media themselves have given their defense and it mainly focuses on the idea that Paul can't win. Do you not find that rather bizarre given that he frequently comes in third nationally?

Hatuey said:
Don't be ridiculous. The same applies for everything else in life. Who is the #5 mp3 player maker in the world? What about the #4th biggest retail chain in the world? Maybe you could tell us which chain is 2 spots behind McDonald's on fast food? Do you think if those guys were in the news more often, they'd sell more? No. Appeal is the issue at hand. I'm surprised that the great "Demon of Light" didn't get that appeal is the word of the day when it comes to politics, business, economics etc. Ron Paul? Appeals to a few teenagers and fat Libertarians. Romney and Perry appeal to the GOP.
Click to expand...

Hatuey, your comparisons are complete nonsense. Yet even in those cases there is something to be said for increasing brand-name recognition. That alone can, in fact, lead to more sales. With a candidate there is another matter entirely however. Voters are driven by many notions and concepts that the media have become adept at manipulating. People like voting for "candidates that can win" and that is something the media make a point of determining on their own well before the actual election. Also the word "fringe" creates a very negative perception and people generally don't look at whether it is a fair use of the term.
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
There is a very large constituency among Republicans that support legalizing drugs, a constituency much larger than the support Ron Paul gets presently. I imagine there is also a considerable number who, in addition, would support a candidate in spite of such a position. Not to mention independents and Democrats who might vote in a primary or caucus. The reality of the situation is that none of his supposedly controversial positions are going to impede his candidacy. His approval ratings show that he has potential support well above what is necessary to win the nomination and polls indicate he would also stand a very good chance of winning the presidency.

It is not his positions that have kept him low in polls. Honestly, go back to the OP and consider the implication of those figures. For someone who gets so little time in the media to be so high in the polls must tell you that he has more room to grow.
Click to expand...

Nothing I will say will convince you otherwise. I'll just add that as to those independents and Democrats for whom his legalized drugs stance might appeal, the fact he wants to eliminate the DOE and does not support Medicare either, will lose him their support. Tit-for-tat.

He's the same song. Second verse, same as the first, every four years.
 
Romney is a known quantity in every respect, including his known flip-flopping. The media themselves have given their defense and it mainly focuses on the idea that Paul can't win. Do you not find that rather bizarre given that he frequently comes in third nationally?
Click to expand...

According to Gallup, Paul is currently fourth in the polls among GOP voters/conservatives. He's not really doing that much hotter than the likes of Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich.

Romney Competitive With Top GOP Rivals Among Conservatives
 
StillBallin75 said:
That's not what he said. He said the DOWNSIDE of a border fence would be that it could be potentially be used to keep Americans in, as well as keep illegals out, which is true. The installation of a border fence, like other forms of strict immigration enforcement - reduces movement and population flow, and commerce across a political border in BOTH DIRECTIONS.

He was not in support of a fence that keeps us in. The real ignorance lies in people not being able to read or listen carefully.
Click to expand...

you waste your time explaining these things to the brain dead electorate.
 
Reg said:
Ron Paul is not a Republican. He's a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

One describes a party, the other describes an ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive, so this statement is idiotic. Do you realize there are conservatives among democrats and liberals among conservatives? (although they seem like endangered species?)
 
StillBallin75 said:
One describes a party, the other describes an ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive, so this statement is idiotic. Do you realize there are conservatives among democrats and liberals among conservatives? (although they seem like endangered species?)
Click to expand...

actually they both describe a party.

the idealogy is a small l libertarian.
 
ARealConservative said:
you waste your time explaining these things to the brain dead electorate.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're brain dead, just stuck to the matrix.



Anyway, to answer your red text Gill, about the fence. The important part was the next sentence.

"In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”

It is not absurd as you may think. Half the country is screaming and demanding that the government "tax the rich". We're near a major economic crisis and if anything you'll definitely feel the pinch next year. If nothing is done, it is all but likely our dollar will eventually collapse. Except people to bail and likely our govt to close the boarders. Things that we think that may be use to protect us, can be used against us..cough patriot act, fema, tsa. Just ask a german friend what they think...

TonyMcAuliffe said:
Here in Germany we had the Berlin Wall. The sovjets said it was an anti-fascist-protection wall but in reality it was a giant prison.
The people were poor because of the communist planned-market crap. Many people died by trying to flee. They were shot by their own people.
They got the "StaSi" (Staatssicherheit, translated "Homeland Security"). It was an agency to destroy the opposition. They had millions of agents in this little country (for example Angela Merkel).
These things can be used and i think they will be used to hold a broken system together.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reg said:
Ron Paul is not a Republican. He's a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

So when he gets elected to the House every two years he is running on the Libertarian Party? Perhaps in Libertarian Fantasy Land. However, in the real world where Libertarians cannot get elected to anything of substance like Congress, he is a Republican.
 
haymarket said:
So when he gets elected to the House every two years he is running on the Libertarian Party? Perhaps in Libertarian Fantasy Land. However, in the real world where Libertarians cannot get elected to anything of substance like Congress, he is a Republican.
Click to expand...

Paul started & will end his career as a republican. He went to the libertarian party to run as a third party in 1988(?) because he was P.O at Regan 2nd term for his spending I believe.

Paul unlike the other candidates is a real republican & conservative then any of the RINOS up on stage.

]
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
Nothing I will say will convince you otherwise. I'll just add that as to those independents and Democrats for whom his legalized drugs stance might appeal, the fact he wants to eliminate the DOE and does not support Medicare either, will lose him their support. Tit-for-tat.
Click to expand...

Nothing you say will convince me because you do not have command of the facts and I do. A considerable number of Republicans support the legalization of drugs as well. Also, not all independents and Democrats need to go to the primary or caucus to vote for Paul for him to win the nomination and not all of them will see those positions as unacceptable. Ron Paul doesn't need a majority of Republicans to agree with his every position in order to win. His consistency also works in his favor as people can be certain of what he will do as president and that gives him a fairly unique appeal among the various candidates.

His positions are not a barrier to his chances of winning support among Republicans or Americans in general. They do serve as a barrier in the respect that the establishment will use every means at its disposal to keep him from ever becoming president.

StillBallin75 said:
According to Gallup, Paul is currently fourth in the polls among GOP voters/conservatives. He's not really doing that much hotter than the likes of Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich.

Romney Competitive With Top GOP Rivals Among Conservatives
Click to expand...

This is news to me. I thought there had been more polls since the beginning of the campaign than just one from Gallup.

jasonxe said:
I don't think they're brain dead, just stuck to the matrix.
Click to expand...

People find it far more comforting to believe the system is not actively working against them and suppressing their true potential.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Ron Paul is the same dude saying the same stuff from four years ago. The only difference is that he is four years older. He is a known quantity. He's not worthy of news coverage because, simply put, he's not news. But it's true that he's a hell of a lot smarter than morons like Bachmann and Santorum, and a better debater than the likes of Perry.
Click to expand...

The fact that he goes against what the Republican machine advocates keeps him from being a contender. Rick Perry was gaining lots of ground but then made a big gaffe (touting that Texas gives children of illegals in-state tuition privileges and those that oppose it are heartless), that eliminated a lot of conservatives that had been rooting for him. Ron Paul has done the same. He tried running as an independent, and like Nader, didn't get much support, just stole votes from other contenders. He may have a lot of supporters, but he is not a favorite of the ones that control who gets selected.
 
mertex said:
The fact that he goes against what the Republican machine advocates keeps him from being a contender. Rick Perry was gaining lots of ground but then made a big gaffe (touting that Texas gives children of illegals in-state tuition privileges and those that oppose it are heartless), that eliminated a lot of conservatives that had been rooting for him. Ron Paul has done the same. He tried running as an independent, and like Nader, didn't get much support, just stole votes from other contenders. He may have a lot of supporters, but he is not a favorite of the ones that control who gets selected.
Click to expand...

or, as the OP initially proposed, the Media, "He may have a lot of supporters, but he is not a favorite of the ones that control who gets selected" might be owned by those who control. Certainly reinforces the point, don't you think?
 
Reg said:
Ron Paul is not a Republican. He's a Libertarian.
Click to expand...
He's a Republican and a libertarian (not Libertarian).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom