RON PAUL - Why is he being ignored?

[GILSAN]

As a foreigner I've always been interested in American politics because it affects the rest of the world. I've always looked up to American's strong belief in freedom but in the last 10-15 years I notice that the American Mainstream Media (MSM) have taken control of the majority of the population's minds and have decided who should win the candidacy both for the Democrats and Republicans.

And this brainwashing seems to get worse all the time. Three years ago the MSM decided that Obama should be the winner and so they where very biased against Hilary Clinton. Result; The media and Obama won.

Now with the Republican nomination the Media is even worse as they seem to have already chosen Mitt Romney to win. What really amazes me is how the Media has totally ignored Ron Paul who appears to be the 2nd most popular candidate, despite the fact that he is being ignored. Just imagine if they (MSM) were to talk about him; He'd probably be the front runner.

Could this (ignoring Ron Paul) be due to to the fact that the MSM is controlled by Jews and they don't like the fact that Ron Paul has said the he would stop Foreign aid to Israel and the rest of the world. Or are they afraid that Ron Paul has the the best chance of beating Obama, therefore by choosing Romney, Obama will obviously have a better chance to win.

What amazes me is that the media is not even being discreet about ignoring RP. Whatever happened to the unbiased American media that the world so much admired?

 

[GILSAN]

Not seeing much re: Ron Paul on any of the major news sites I visit..

It's mostly Santorum in the limelight now. When are the next primaries or debate? Maybe they'll talk about him then.

Actually Judge Napolitano talked a little about him on this Video; probably his last at FOX because as you may know he was fired by Fox a couple of days ago. What a shame. He at least didn't ignore Ron Paul.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=player_embedded"]Judge Napolitano.How to get fired in under 5 mins - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dgridley]

I personally think there is a real conspiracy to keep Paul out of the media, not matter how well he might do..

 

[GILSAN]

I personally think there is a real conspiracy to keep Paul out of the media, not matter how well he might do..

Big Corporations who own the MSM don't want him. Big Banks who own the Federal Reserve don't want him, Wall Street, Big Insurance, Big Pharma don't want him. Even Republicans seem not to want him. He's got a lot of powerful forces against him.

Even in the last caucus in Maine the GOP chairman stopped counting the votes prematurely. The voting was closed with only 83% of the votes counted while the other 17% would not count as per gop instructions.... Where they afraid that Ron Paul was too close to overtake Romney?

 

[JB Lions]

"Big Corporations who own the MSM don't want him. Big Banks who own the Federal Reserve don't want him, Wall Street, Big Insurance, Big Pharma don't want him. Even Republicans seem not to want him."

People who have actually looked into all his views, don't want him either.

 

[gemstar]

 

[GILSAN]

People who have actually looked into all his views, don't want him either.

You forgot to mention "voter fraud" as well:

Should Ron Paul demand a new vote count in Maine?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...uld-Ron-Paul-demand-a-new-vote-count-in-Maine

Could Ron Paul Still Win Maine?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...aul-still-win-maine/?scp=2&sq=ron paul&st=cse

Seems like a lot of dirty tricks going on to make sure Ron Paul does not win. So much for the "Land of the free" and "Democracy"

 

[dgridley]

Is Paul helping Romney win?

http://my.firedoglake.com/phoenix/2...-friend-neatly-splits-anti-mitt-primary-vote/

 

[DU]

People who have actually looked into all his views, don't want him either.

Ding.

You can't usually fool the intelligent or the poor (you'll never fool the intelligent AND poor)

 

[GILSAN]

Ding.

You can't usually fool the intelligent or the poor (you'll never fool the intelligent AND poor)

What we need to know is what percentage of the population is intelligent. The % of POOR is easier to find.

---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

Is Paul helping Romney win?

http://my.firedoglake.com/phoenix/2...-friend-neatly-splits-anti-mitt-primary-vote/

Seems very unlikely to me. Sort of like trying to mix water and olive oil. But.... in politics, you never know.


:lol:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r9DEPMxHQU&feature=player_embedded"]sh*t government says - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kokoro]

I read today that Ron Paul was booed during TV debate with the other candidates when he had warned against pre-emptive attack on Iran, adding that there is no proof Iran is actually building a nuclear bomb.

I'm a bit shocked by this as it means many people want starting that war, despite knowing it won't benefit USA in any way. Moreover, it may only bring disaster to the US and World economy once the oil prices skyrocket. Why so many people like idea of attacking Iran when even Panetta says there is no proof Iran has nuclear program (not to mention, they are not building anything like nuke)? At the same time, nobody even mention Israel who possesses many nukes illegally and even don't allow any inspections.

 

[RogueWriter]

I'm a bit shocked by this as it means many people want starting that war, despite knowing it won't benefit USA in any way.

The primary benefit to the U.S. would be the eventual prevention of a nuclear detonation occurring in a metropolitan area within the United States, saving, first, the lives of hundreds of thousands of American citizens and consequently the additional lives of tens of millions of middle eastern citizens from a nuclear and conventional response.

Why would you find it shocking that the United States wants to save millions of lives?

No one wants to start a war, and this whole mess could be ended by Iran simply by allowing inspectors in to verify their peaceful intentions. But, Iran cannot do that, because they do not have peaceful intentions. So, Iran has to hope that gullible people will continue to push for a delayed reaction from the West until it is too late.

 

[Kokoro]

The primary benefit to the U.S. would be the eventual prevention of a nuclear detonation occurring in a metropolitan area within the United States, saving, first, the lives of hundreds of thousands of American citizens (...)

Why would you find it shocking that the United States wants to save millions of lives?

That "eventual prevention" means that any country could be attacked under presumption that one is working on something danger. That's even more shocking. The fact is that there is no intelligence proof they are indeed working on nuclear weapons. The Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei recently said that the Iranian nation has never been seeking an atomic weapon and never will be. Until there is a proof that he is lying, we have the same situation as we had with Iraq and their WMD threatening America and Europe. I find a war too serious thing to wage it based on false or unverified hypothesis.

But even assuming Iran will have that secret program and they finally assemble some nukes, it still sounds very unlikely they would attack USA with it? Why would they risk American retaliation which would be likely annihilation of their country? That would be something completely irrational and for the same reason China, Russia or any other country didn't use their nuclear arsenals against USA or any other country. Last time I heard from a top US military official the Iranian regime is behaving rationally. source.

I want too nuclear-free Middle East and therefore it is not Iran to start with. Their archenemy Israel possesses many nukes and I would say, from their point of view, it is logical to get theirs, to restore local balance of power.

 

[RogueWriter]

Uh-huh, and we won't 'have proof' until they drop a bomb on someone, since they are unwilling to allow inspectors into Iran. If you are willing to allow more and more countries the ability to produce nuclear weapons, you are just asking for a global disaster to occur at some point.

http://news.yahoo.com/wife-admits-i...ist-ultimate-goal-annihilation-174209842.html

I am not going to get into a long winded post about how wrong you are - that would take hours - so I'll leave with one last thought about Ron Paul instead.

Given his age, there is no way he would be able to handle two terms. So, from the republican point of view, it would make sense to elect someone who wil be able to use the next four years of owning the microphone to build his popularity up to the point where he can easily move into a second term.

After one term of Ron Paul, it's going to be a do-over, starting from scratch and you are letting the democrats get right back into the race. Just one small reason, but it is one I have not seen here, so I thought I would bring it up.

Who would Ron Paul bring in as a vp candidate? While I can be pretty sure the other candidates would pick from a viable pool, like Rubio or Daniels, etc., I have no idea what Paul would do.

 

[Kokoro]

Uh-huh, and we won't 'have proof' until they drop a bomb on someone, since they are unwilling to allow inspectors into Iran. If you are willing to allow more and more countries the ability to produce nuclear weapons, you are just asking for a global disaster to occur at some point.

I am not going to get into a long winded post about how wrong you are - that would take hours - so I'll leave with one last thought about Ron Paul instead.

Please enlighten me how I'm wrong on that? You didn't present anything to counter my words. I respect any human life no matter Iranian or American and I don't accept the idea to attack sovereign countries and kill people based on some presumptions. Do I have to remind the war with Iraq and how did it end? Hundreds of thousands people killed or wounded, hundreds of thousands soldiers with PTSD syndrome unable to lead normal life. Not to mention radiation-related disorders from depleted uranium. All this because of presumptions and false proofs? And now history going to repeat? Except that Iran is much stronger and is backed but Russia and China. Multiply the disaster from Iraq and add serious economy crisis to that.

By the way, Iran is allowing inspectors into the country.

Edit: Sorry, this is off-topic. I will not continue this here unless you want to start a new thread on the matter.

 

[GILSAN]

Who would Ron Paul bring in as a vp candidate? While I can be pretty sure the other candidates would pick from a viable pool, like Rubio or Daniels, etc., I have no idea what Paul would do.

Ron Paul said: "I Would Consider Judge Napolitano As My Vice President"
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ron-paul-i-would-consider-judge-napolitano-as-my-vice-president/

The same Judge Napolitano who was fired from Fox recently for asking some questions on the Video... Check it out... Quite astonishing. Whatever happened to the US's famous freedom of speech?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...got-judge-napolitano-fired-from-fox-news.html

Now here's a really interesting bit of news, even though its from the Bush Presidency.
It about the US Funding the Iranian nuclear program. I'm but not totally surprised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4lB1Y4ZwfU&feature=player_embedded#!

Governments and politicians never cease to amaze me. The more I watch all the other war mongerers the more I agree with Ron Paul. His foreign policy ALONE would do wonders to America's standing abroad and at home. Just look at all the hatred towards Americans in the last 3 days in Afghanistan. If this continues for much longer the US will be forced to leave there a lot sooner than expected. And now some people are itching to get into another war now. Ron Paul is right and the others are wrong.

 

[VirtualT]

Ding.

You can't usually fool the intelligent or the poor (you'll never fool the intelligent AND poor)

I have an idea Mr 'defaultuser', if you are going to go back through threads you post in and replace all your posts with ... how about not bothering to post in the first place, for anyone thats trying to read the thread from the begining what you are doing turns it into a trainwreck.

 

[RaiderGirl]

Big Corporations who own the MSM don't want him. Big Banks who own the Federal Reserve don't want him, Wall Street, Big Insurance, Big Pharma don't want him. Even Republicans seem not to want him. He's got a lot of powerful forces against him.

Exactly, And this is where the confusion is with respect Ron Paul backing Romney, Romney is in bed with Wall Street more than any of the other candidates, Is a matter a fact, Wall Street has given Romney campaign more CASH than to Obama's... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...y-draws-more-Wall-Street-donations-than-Obama

So if Ron Paul is as passionate about corruption on Wall Street as he says he is, what the hell is he doing teaming up with Romney?

If he's doing it for a spot at the Republican convention, that's selling out, no matter how you look at it.

 

[SlimPickins]

saying it is a matter of "age" is, at least globally speaking, a cop-out... the "new" president in Germany, Gauck, is 72 years old, Italy's recent PM Berlusconi is 75 (and still RAWKING it seems), Sarkozy (pres in France) is 62 and that is just to name a few.....

and, in my opinion, RP for even ONE term might just be enough to shake the tree enough to sow the fruits of change in several areas where the US has really gone astray. I said it before and I will say it again there are several aspects of Paul's agenda that I do NOT agree with, and even strongly disagree with, but feel that his view on some of the more (globally and internally) pivotal issues is exactly the kick in the arse that we need and the rest of the world would welcome.

 

[JB Lions]

saying it is a matter of "age" is, at least globally speaking, a cop-out... the "new" president in Germany, Gauck, is 72 years old, Italy's recent PM Berlusconi is 75 (and still RAWKING it seems), Sarkozy (pres in France) is 62 and that is just to name a few.....

and, in my opinion, RP for even ONE term might just be enough to shake the tree enough to sow the fruits of change in several areas where the US has really gone astray. I said it before and I will say it again there are several aspects of Paul's agenda that I do NOT agree with, and even strongly disagree with, but feel that his view on some of the more (globally and internally) pivotal issues is exactly the kick in the arse that we need and the rest of the world would welcome.

Washington wouldn't let him go thru with his agenda, either party. He wouldn't get anything done. What's missing in these discussions from Ron Paul fans, is going thru some of his views and explaining how they would be good for this country. Earlier, I just touched on a few: "Being against the Civil Rights bill, helping out in Katrina, against the Americans With Disabilities Act, against Federal Safety standards, wants to pull out of Nato, U.N" etc.

 

[DN BROKER]

Who is Ron Paul?

 

[RaiderGirl]

I said it before and I will say it again there are several aspects of Paul's agenda that I do NOT agree with, and even strongly disagree with

It's those very aspects or policies the Obama campaign will exploit and make them the centerpiece for his re-election, It will be a campaign of the lessor of two evils; Do we want 4 years more of incompetence or do we want risk electing a racist right wing lunatic.. NOT in anyway suggesting Ron Paul is, but this is what the Obama campaign will do to him, And you can count on the left wing media to re-enforce that message as well.

It all goes back to the question of electability against Obama. The big reason why I think he hasn't performed better in the primaries.

 

[johname]

Non of the Republicans left are electable against Obama.

 

[GILSAN]

So if Ron Paul is as passionate about corruption on Wall Street as he says he is, what the hell is he doing teaming up with Romney?

If he's doing it for a spot at the Republican convention, that's selling out, no matter how you look at it.

I've read a couple articles about Ron Paul teaming up with Romney, but quite honesty I think it's all pure speculation from the Media. They (MSM) are so good at inventing stories and during the last debate there was absolutely nothing to suggest this was happening.

After the debate on AC360 some of those so called experts were saying that the candidates spent too much time talking about family planning, religion and earmarks but not enough on the economy.

What's really amazing is that John King and other debate moderators waste so much time with so many irrelevant questions and then after the debates they complain that the 4 candidates are not talking about the important issues. What a bunch of pathetic lying hypocrites. Why don't they let the questions be made only by the people attending the debates or by internet or whatever, as long as these questions are not hand picked by the MSM.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNxu4hv7Uk"]Tool Time: CNN Blows Another Debate - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GILSAN]

Here's some food for thought;
What's amazing is that the MSM talks about voter fraud in other countries (the latest being Russia) and here you have it under your own noses:

16,022 Ron Paul Votes Stolen by Voting Machines.. Watch Diebold Machine in ACTION!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwS4XMEr_qY&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[JB Lions]

Here's some food for thought;
What's amazing is that the MSM talks about voter fraud in other countries (the latest being Russia) and here you have it under your own noses:

16,022 Ron Paul Votes Stolen by Voting Machines.. Watch Diebold Machine in ACTION!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwS4XMEr_qY&feature=player_embedded#!

You know that's an old video having nothing to do with Ron Paul right?