Republican Debate: Tonight

[Scrum]

Huck wasn't getting a lot of coverage until he won Iowa and he hasn't received much since.


Do you want to know why RP isn't getting a lot media coverage?
Because he's selling something the Republicans don't want.

They like their big government (only their brand though, not that commie shit.) and they like their interventionist policy. The last thing they want is someone telling them it's wrong. They don't even really care all that much about the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is the only piece they seem to recognize.

They want to be the big guy on the playground. They want their President to go out and be proactive in their defense. RP just isn't that guy.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

I base it on this Thorgrim...

YouTube - Research Media Bias against Ron Paul on Google Labs

I'd, at a minimum, call it close as to which came first as I pointed out in my last post.

Fed Up

I watched more than your little video clip, i was intensely monitoring the GOP primary during Romney's 20 point leads, the focus was on

1) Rudy and Thompson
2) The ONLY thing they reported about McCain was that he was dying
3) Romney was, IMO getting the shaft because his national numbers weren't high

Huckabee, Hunter, etc were all not included because they had nothing to back them up

Rudy and Thompson had a brief exchange of national leads, everyone in the media seemed to enjoy laughing at mccain, Romney had leads in the first big two states

no one else deserved BIG coverage

however, Ron Paul was on all the major networks, had millions of people watching the MULTIPLE debates

And I saw Ron Paul when they gave him more time during at least one debate, he just kept repeating himself

Iraq, paper money, Iraq, paper money

I get it, and so did everyone else, that's half the reason you're complaingin is so ridiculous, people knew Ron Paul's libertarian economic plans and Iraq withdrawal plans better than they knew most other candidates "unique" positions

They simply REJECTED IT

I've said before, a majority of primary voters would be satisfied with Hillary or Obama, the rest of them want a Reaganesque conservative like Thompson, or a moderate one like McCain

Just get over it, people saw your message and went "fuck that"

Even though Ron Paul got more coverage than he deserved, had he gotten even grossly more coverage than he deserved, the same result would have happened...my god ive seen ron paul stickers in lots of places, and the internet was jam-packed with Ron Paul stuff

Take some blame for yourself, or are you going to sit here and complain for the next 10 months that everyone would embrace the Ron Paul message if only the media hadn't "conspired" against him

Ron Paul got 3% in Florida...that'd be like what...1.5% of the national vote if it was open...pretty much where he was in 1988

Libertarians have gone nowhere, they just as unpopular, get a real number of supporters before you keep bothering us for 20 years about how we HAVE to listen to you and we NEED to sacrifice coverage from people we are interested in (Obama/McCain/Hillary) to listen to someone we do not care about at all

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

I base it on this Thorgrim...

YouTube - Research Media Bias against Ron Paul on Google Labs

I'd, at a minimum, call it close as to which came first as I pointed out in my last post.

Fed Up

Ron Paul is popular on the internet, everyone knows that. But when its comes to the voting boths and polls he is not. That MSPAINT research proved that.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I watched more than your little video clip, i was intensely monitoring the GOP primary during Romney's 20 point leads, the focus was on

1) Rudy and Thompson
2) The ONLY thing they reported about McCain was that he was dying
3) Romney was, IMO getting the shaft because his national numbers weren't high

Huckabee, Hunter, etc were all not included because they had nothing to back them up

Rudy and Thompson had a brief exchange of national leads, everyone in the media seemed to enjoy laughing at mccain, Romney had leads in the first big two states

no one else deserved BIG coverage

however, Ron Paul was on all the major networks, had millions of people watching the MULTIPLE debates

And I saw Ron Paul when they gave him more time during at least one debate, he just kept repeating himself

Iraq, paper money, Iraq, paper money

I get it, and so did everyone else, that's half the reason you're complaingin is so ridiculous, people knew Ron Paul's libertarian economic plans and Iraq withdrawal plans better than they knew most other candidates "unique" positions

They simply REJECTED IT

I've said before, a majority of primary voters would be satisfied with Hillary or Obama, the rest of them want a Reaganesque conservative like Thompson, or a moderate one like McCain

Just get over it, people saw your message and went "fuck that"

Even though Ron Paul got more coverage than he deserved, had he gotten even grossly more coverage than he deserved, the same result would have happened...my god ive seen ron paul stickers in lots of places, and the internet was jam-packed with Ron Paul stuff

Take some blame for yourself, or are you going to sit here and complain for the next 10 months that everyone would embrace the Ron Paul message if only the media hadn't "conspired" against him

Ron Paul got 3% in Florida...that'd be like what...1.5% of the national vote if it was open...pretty much where he was in 1988

Libertarians have gone nowhere, they just as unpopular, get a real number of supporters before you keep bothering us for 20 years about how we HAVE to listen to you and we NEED to sacrifice coverage from people we are interested in (Obama/McCain/Hillary) to listen to someone we do not care about at all

Good post - would give you a rep point but the system wont allow me (or to give to Dos, 6speed and a few others until I "spread it around" more) even though it was well over a month since the last time I gave you a point.

Libertarians would get a lot further if they stopped treating the people they want to help as "blind sheep" and stop talking down to them. You have to align yourself to the peoples ideals, values and beliefs and then you change things.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Good post - would give you a rep point but the system wont allow me (or to give to Dos, 6speed and a few others until I "spread it around" more) even though it was well over a month since the last time I gave you a point.

Libertarians would get a lot further if they stopped treating the people they want to help as "blind sheep" and stop talking down to them. You have to align yourself to the peoples ideals, values and beliefs and then you change things.

The problem is their continual poor showing indicates one thing:

A) They have failed in the marketplace of ideas, and thus should close shop, at least until the political situations changed dramatically

or

B) People are idiots, and they don't understand or have been wasting their time not playing close enough attention to how great libertarian positions are


If you were a libertarian, which one would you pick?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The problem is their continual poor showing indicates one thing:

A) They have failed in the marketplace of ideas, and thus should close shop, at least until the political situations changed dramatically

or

B) People are idiots, and they don't understand or have been wasting their time not playing close enough attention to how great libertarian positions are


If you were a libertarian, which one would you pick?

I could agree with either of those (it's likely a little of both), except the part in A where you say they should give up. Giving up is pointless, they just need to work on getting the ideas out there in an attractive way.

The marketplace of ideas, as you put it, is fickle. RP has done as well as he has this year because there are a lot of conservatives out there that do not agree with the Republicans, and they feel abandoned by the party. People that think war and pre-emptive attacks aren't the way to go. RP attracted those people to his platform, and hopefully they were also paying attention to other things he was saying. That is a great way to get out the message of freedom.

Will he win a nomination? Most likely not (I think we'd all be surprised if he even won a state), but as far as advancing the ideas and ideals he represents, I think he's done a great job. I do not feel the money I donated him was wasted at all. If I had given money to Giullani, I'd be pissed right now.

I also think RP would have generated more votes had the economy been as bad as it is 6 months ago. He talks a lot about the war and our economy, and people are being really slow to realize just how bad the economy is getting. By the time the realization hits, RP will be out of the race (or running third party/independent) and the chance to give him an actual shot for the November election will have passed.

But, it's no surprise that shit has to get bad before people start to listen. People were pushing for secession from England long before the Revolutionary War, and it took stuff getting worse and worse for the change to happen.

[Thorgrim]

Your excuse of the GOP doesn't work because independents could vote and there was a huge drive to get registered democrats to change registration

With all his money, and air time, and exposed message, his poor voting returns show, in my opinion, that libertarianism has failed for this generation

I am not saying "quit" I am saying go to the academic world and try to get people to try ONE libertarian idea, and go from there...

But as far as getting people to embrace libertarianism...or a vialbe LP...the past 20 years have shown it's simply not going to happen in our lifetimes, they have have so many chances in every election (ive outlined it before) and done so poorly...

You can throw all your money and energy into winning the White House, or you can try to get people upset with a particular situation to try the libertarian idea, and do baby steps

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I watched more than your little video clip, i was intensely monitoring the GOP primary during Romney's 20 point leads, the focus was on

1) Rudy and Thompson
2) The ONLY thing they reported about McCain was that he was dying
3) Romney was, IMO getting the shaft because his national numbers weren't high

Huckabee, Hunter, etc were all not included because they had nothing to back them up

Rudy and Thompson had a brief exchange of national leads, everyone in the media seemed to enjoy laughing at mccain, Romney had leads in the first big two states

no one else deserved BIG coverage

however, Ron Paul was on all the major networks, had millions of people watching the MULTIPLE debates

And I saw Ron Paul when they gave him more time during at least one debate, he just kept repeating himself

Iraq, paper money, Iraq, paper money

I get it, and so did everyone else, that's half the reason you're complaingin is so ridiculous, people knew Ron Paul's libertarian economic plans and Iraq withdrawal plans better than they knew most other candidates "unique" positions

They simply REJECTED IT

I've said before, a majority of primary voters would be satisfied with Hillary or Obama, the rest of them want a Reaganesque conservative like Thompson, or a moderate one like McCain

Just get over it, people saw your message and went "fuck that"

Even though Ron Paul got more coverage than he deserved, had he gotten even grossly more coverage than he deserved, the same result would have happened...my god ive seen ron paul stickers in lots of places, and the internet was jam-packed with Ron Paul stuff

Take some blame for yourself, or are you going to sit here and complain for the next 10 months that everyone would embrace the Ron Paul message if only the media hadn't "conspired" against him

Ron Paul got 3% in Florida...that'd be like what...1.5% of the national vote if it was open...pretty much where he was in 1988

Libertarians have gone nowhere, they just as unpopular, get a real number of supporters before you keep bothering us for 20 years about how we HAVE to listen to you and we NEED to sacrifice coverage from people we are interested in (Obama/McCain/Hillary) to listen to someone we do not care about at all

And all I have to say to the above diatribe is...

...you would vote for a political party that is anti-capitalist and think more government involvement is going to be good for Americans, that we can spend our way out of this mess.

Financial advisers are worried a democrat will get in the Whitehouse: Financial advisers' No. 1 worry: A Democrat in the White House - InvestmentNews Clinton would mandate health coverage via the "federal employee health benefit program" where people who don't even want health coverage (like many younger people) would have no choice in the matter but have to pay for it. Obama's plan of subsidizing those who can't afford health insurance is just another added government expense.

....you know nothing about the economics of it all, let alone the financial ramifications relating to investments, where big government and anti-capitalism ARE the problem, and neither does most of America.

Personally, my goal, my passion in life, is to wake people up to that for which they do not know about the economics of it all; the misrepresentation by our politicians and the collusion with the Federal Reserve as they drive America into a black hole of depression caused by a monetary crisis from creating too much money to pay for all of these government programs/wars/subsidies. More government is NOT the answer!

So your point is taken....there are many in America who don't understand Paul's position on the issues and naively say..."f that"....and that is why I am doing something about it.

You're mistaken when you say "take some blame yourself." Blame for what? The fact that so many have joined the rEVOLution and it continues to grow? The fact that those who support Paul have 9 more months of getting his "message" out to the masses, to enlighten them on what economic perils are forthcoming if hard decisions and cutbacks aren't made now? The fact that you think the rEVOLution will end if Ron Paul doesn't win in November?

The problem is, people like you think everything is fine in America. The truth of the matter is...., it isn't. The dollar is tanking and your answer is more government.

You reap what you sow...

"When a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves, and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes.”
George Washinton

Fed Up

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Your excuse of the GOP doesn't work because independents could vote and there was a huge drive to get registered democrats to change registration

With all his money, and air time, and exposed message, his poor voting returns show, in my opinion, that libertarianism has failed for this generation

I am not saying "quit" I am saying go to the academic world and try to get people to try ONE libertarian idea, and go from there...

But as far as getting people to embrace libertarianism...or a vialbe LP...the past 20 years have shown it's simply not going to happen in our lifetimes, they have have so many chances in every election (ive outlined it before) and done so poorly...

You can throw all your money and energy into winning the White House, or you can try to get people upset with a particular situation to try the libertarian idea, and do baby steps

Not really, I am saying that the people who DID vote for him have conservative leanings, even if they were registered independents or democrats or whatever else. No matter how many ways you say he didn't get a lot of support, he did. The money and numbers of people willing to donate show that he DOES have support, it's just not enough to translate into votes. But if even 10% of those people (who were not previously libertarian anyway) start realizing the benefits of Constitutionist ideas, then the whole run was a success. And that is completely aside from people who did NOT vote for him or donate to him but heard his message and realize how right he is.

I'm disappointed he didn't get more votes, sure. Who wouldn't be disappointed if a candidate they really supported did poorly? But as far as getting the message out, I'm not disappointed at all. I would have liked to seen it do better than it did, but that's neither here nor there.

[Ardentfrost]

Oh, plus even if the ideas will never come to fruition in our lifetime, that's STILL no reason to stop trying. Trying is what furthers the goals.

[Thorgrim]

thewise1, Arden...all big time RP supporters, I know thewise1 gave a lot of money to Ron Paul will admit: People just didn't buy it

So I'm not going to argue with you about Ron Paul's smaller money bombs, his continual drop in financial donations, his drop in poll numbers across the country...it's all basic facts that even libertarians acknowledge

your arguments are right out of the 1988 libertarian playbook, and your "the fight will go on!!!" is also of the same playbook...its been 20 years, ive been listening to you guys say the same thing for the past 10 on the internet...if you insist on repeating the same stuff for the next 20 years, go ahead, just don't blame us because we're not interested

we have well, thought out reasons we like our ideas, going off on how how wrong we all our sounds just a bit arrogant...it gets annoying

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh, plus even if the ideas will never come to fruition in our lifetime, that's STILL no reason to stop trying. Trying is what furthers the goals.

In 1984, should I have focused on trying to get Mondale elected, or on winning some Democratic Senate seats for progressive Senators...especially after the 2nd debate

You only have a certain amount of resources, use them wisely

You want to ignore me advice, alright, obviously your call, but I advocate small steps, idea by idea, before you go full blitz for the White House

[DosEquis]

For any major change, we need a major negative event.

Before people buy Ron Paul's economic policy this current policy will need to totally collapse. Before we buy Ron Paul's foreign policy we will need a major international campaign against us, including our major allies such as the UK.

Until then you need baby steps as thor suggests, or he will just seem like the lone loony nut job, even if i do agree with his foreign policy.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

For any major change, we need a major negative event.

Before people buy Ron Paul's economic policy this current policy will need to totally collapse. Before we buy Ron Paul's foreign policy we will need a major international campaign against us, including our major allies such as the UK.

Until then you need baby steps as thor suggests, or he will just seem like the lone loony nut job, even if i do agree with his foreign policy.

I agree, and I hope the LP takes that advice, however that STILL doesn't say that RP has been completely unsuccessful in at least furthering the ideas and getting them more exposure.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

For any major change, we need a major negative event.

Before people buy Ron Paul's economic policy this current policy will need to totally collapse. Before we buy Ron Paul's foreign policy we will need a major international campaign against us, including our major allies such as the UK.

Until then you need baby steps as thor suggests, or he will just seem like the lone loony nut job, even if i do agree with his foreign policy.

What about foresight, BEFORE any total collapse? Are we to just let the collapse occur and then react?

The major campaign against us is currently happening. Have you seen the value of the dollar versus all other currencies? versus gold and silver? Are we to ignore these signs? The only reason the dollar hasn't crashed is because China and Japan hold the purse strings. As the rest of the world has increased the purchasing power of their currencies, increasing their wealth, the U.S. is headed towards financial armageddon if/when China and Japan lose faith in the Almighty Dollar! Unless we bomb them of course....which our military seems to be the only real backing of the dollar.

Romney, McCain, Clinton and Obama are clueless to the economics. Ron Paul isn't, and he knows something has to be done NOW!

But I am somewhat of a realist too and I do believe the collapse will come because Americans are, for the most part, ignorant. I do find great intelligence on this forum, but this is not a good representation of the comprehension Americans have of fiscal policy.

Fed Up

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

What about foresight, BEFORE any total collapse? Are we to just let the collapse occur and then react?

The major campaign against us is currently happening. Have you seen the value of the dollar versus all other currencies? versus gold and silver? Are we to ignore these signs? The only reason the dollar hasn't crashed is because China and Japan hold the purse strings. As the rest of the world has increased the purchasing power of their currencies, increasing their wealth, the U.S. is headed towards financial armageddon if/when China and Japan lose faith in the Almighty Dollar! Unless we bomb them of course....which our military seems to be the only real backing of the dollar.

Romney, McCain, Clinton and Obama are clueless to the economics. Ron Paul isn't, and he knows something has to be done NOW!

But I am somewhat of a realist too and I do believe the collapse will come because Americans are, for the most part, ignorant. I do find great intelligence on this forum, but this is not a good representation of the comprehension Americans have of fiscal policy.

Fed Up

I'll bring it up once again since it gets ignored...you say that the current politicians are all clueless and can't do a single thing. Well, if Paul is President, you realize all those useless politicians are in Congress? How is Ron Paul going to make Congress do a 180 from total incompetence to complete compliant status? Here's how...he can't do it. He can spout all these ideas and all his rhetoric all he wants...he can get out his pen and write elegant bills and laws...none of it matters unless Congress passes any of it. Guess what? They won't. I've said it before, i'll say it again...Paul winning THIS presidency will be the downfall of your party...your ideals...your wave of change. Have your party get their shit together and get a majority in Congress...THEN attempt to put someone in the White House. Until you can win the small elections, you have no hope in the big one. Until you can implement change on a local level...you have no hope on a Federal or global level. Period.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Romney, McCain, Clinton and Obama are clueless to the economics. Ron Paul isn't, and he knows something has to be done NOW!

But I am somewhat of a realist too and I do believe the collapse will come because Americans are, for the most part, ignorant. I do find great intelligence on this forum, but this is not a good representation of the comprehension Americans have of fiscal policy.

Fed Up

Romney has a MBA from Havard and graduated in the top 5% of his class, he has had a ton of succuess in private business so he certainly knows quite a bit about economics.

RP is an OB/GYN, how does that qualify him as an economist?