It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why is CNN stepping on Ron Paul?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on May, 27 2007 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by NGC2736
Pilot, I agree. I am sure that too many people use the terms interchangeably. It is the same way that so many, even here in America, confuse the political leadership with America the nation or the people of America. Not good, but a hard habit to break.

The 2% that control 80% of everything come from every country, and are of every race, and every religion.

agree about the 2%, anyone with the means is capable of a power grab, no group is exempt, we are all human. If I had power, I'm sure I would abuse it to silence and control people who didn't see things my way.

Power concedes nothing, it must be taken from. They will not give their position willingly. As far as earthly power...I hope there is a greater power everyone has access to equally. I hope that power prevails someday so we can stop fighting.

posted on May, 27 2007 @ 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Togetic
Why is it so hard to accept that no one gives a flying flip about Ron Paul? It happens: you agree with someone but no one else does. I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says--more than you might realize--but I recognize that no one else agrees. It happens; it's called democracy. He's had a platform on television to explain his beliefs, but he was unable to bring himself to national prominence in the Congress and that's his fault. It's a shame, I happen to think that this country needs 8 years of libertarian rule. But just because other people are too dumb to disagree doesn't mean that there's a Jewish conspiracy behind it all.

That is the thing. ALOT of people actually DO agree with Ron Paul, and if you ask them questions about issues, you see that people are in agreement with what he says. Most of them want smaller government, they want to get out of iraq, they don't want an interventionist policy, they don't want to go to war. They want less taxes.

The problem isn't their lack of interest in Ron Paul, it's their lack of exposure. I did a random survey yesterday of the first 50 people I saw walking through the mall shopping. Out of that 50, 49 knew who Barack Obama was. All of them knew who Hilary Clinton was. 41 knew who Rudy Giuliani was. 38 knew who John McCain was. You know how many knew who Ron Paul was? 3. 3 people out of the random 50 people I asked knew who Ron Paul was. To me, I think THAT explains why the polls for Ron Paul are so low. The average american has never heard of him. Hell, even most of the politicially interested americans didn't know who he was unless they watched the republican debate or followed news 24/7.

If he can't get the exposure on the media, he will never will the polls, because people won't know who he is.

posted on May, 27 2007 @ 01:57 PM
grimreaper, I agree, it's a catch-22. If you're not known, you can't make the polls, and if you don't make the polls, you're not known.

But one would think that after being in the debate, and then being castigated on FOX(?) by commentators, that he would be known better than he was before it all started. By that reasoning, hate him or love him, it would be reasonable to think that his standings would make some kind of a change.

I am interested in the polling process itself also.

Reading the fine print in the CNN poll, I was surprised to note that the whole survey was of less than 1000 people, across the United states. Now I would think that by choosing states with a higher likelyhood of, A) having a strong regional candidate in the race or, B) further removed from Texas where Ron Paul might have more name recognition, could skew the results.

While it is all well and good to say that a thousand people were in this survey, if a majority were from states in the northeast, California, Michigan, and Florida, then this could be a meaningless poll.

Yet, this poll could be used to further diminish a candidate's standing in the future.

At this rate, we could just as well have a big playoff using the "rock, paper, scissors" method.

posted on May, 27 2007 @ 05:13 PM
I am still interested in ways to learn more about the polling process, and how a civic minded group, maybe volunteers from here at ATS, could get a poll that would be really fair. Not that I am interested in becoming a pollster, but perhaps a few times before the election we could check the facts out for ourselves.

The point is, there's no use wasting your vote on a candidate that simply does not have a chance of winning. It would be in the best interest of Ron Paul supporters to find this out as early as possible, so that an alternative could be found.

Conversely, if it could be proven that the man is gaining ground, then there would be better reason to give him the support you intended.

And this should apply to all candidates in this race equally. Right as it stands, we are in ignorance of the correct position in the race of any candidate.

Any suggestions?

posted on May, 27 2007 @ 09:46 PM
Just saw Ron Paul on CNN's Sunday Spotlight! 10 minutes of face time on mainstream media! Needless to say, he once again came across sane, thoughtful, and appealing. I think Paul may have finally reached the tipping point where the powers that be won't be able to hide him from the public any more. Go Ron!

posted on May, 27 2007 @ 11:20 PM

My printer is out of ink
but this sight looks like the place to go for free Ron Paul election stuff, and a lot of it is downloadable.

I find places that seem to show him picking up in some polls, but these are mostly run by his supporters, so that doesn't count. The bad thing is, he's not even included in a lot of the polls I find, and where he is, these are recent polls. And sure enough, he didn't get included in the latest Texas polls that I could find. Draw your own conclusions on that.

Thanks for the news that he got some mainstream time on the tube.

[Edit to try to get my link on]

Okay, I am not doing something right. I hit the little globe, type in the address starting with the 'www' and then hit okay. The thing comes back with a highlighted area displaying "http://", and I hit okay again. And it still does not work.

So, one of you fine folks, please tell me that I'm not terminally computer stupid. Wht the hell am I doing wrong? That's just what the handbook says. But the link doesn't work.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by NGC2736]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by NGC2736]

posted on May, 27 2007 @ 11:32 PM
Never mind, I failed to type in "http:// myself, and then hit ok. I'll get better. It's working now.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:25 AM
What, you mean I found a place for all you Ron Paul supporters to get free stuff, and you're not jumping on it? And after I went to the effort of learning how to post a good link, too.

Well, maybe tomorrow.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:54 AM
I know it's low of me to give a shameless bump, but this is because Ron Paul seems to be a good choice.

No, I've still not decided 100%, because I want to read more on where he stands on some issues, but I'm up around 90%, because he's the only one who gives a damn about the Constitution.

So if anyone reads this, here on Memorial Day, you'll know why I bumped this.

And if you're a "skimmer", and are just checking out the latest posts for new developments, go back upstream a couple of posts, and you'll find some things you can get for FREE!

Long Live The Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:18 AM
educating Rudy press conference, by Ron Paul.

sorry i dont know how to embed? a video, so if someone can i would be gateful. here is the link

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by NGC2736
The point is, there's no use wasting your vote on a candidate that simply does not have a chance of winning. It would be in the best interest of Ron Paul supporters to find this out as early as possible, so that an alternative could be found.

Conversely, if it could be proven that the man is gaining ground, then there would be better reason to give him the support you intended.

And this should apply to all candidates in this race equally. Right as it stands, we are in ignorance of the correct position in the race of any candidate.

Any suggestions?

No!! Always vote for the candidate that resonates with you. Dont follow the sheep mentality when it comes to voting and only vote for the guy who has a chance to win! This is the primaries. If at any time you should be supporting the underdog or a candidate that isnt well known, it is now while people are still learning about all the candidates.

Personally, I thought Guilianni was a little smarter than he was until all this airtime he has been getting changed my mind. Conversly, I didnt even know who Ron Paul was! Now, I see that hes the only candidate that I would waste my time supporting, regardless of whether or not he will win.

The rest are neocon shills.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 12:13 PM
xEphon, I agree. What I meant was that If we support him now, which I basically do, that is great. But if he falls so low that he is not on the ticket, or gives up the fight, and we know this for a fact, then it's wise to have a second choice.

Having a second choice, maybe Gravel or whoever is second best, is better than not voting at all and letting another idiot like Bush get it. And in my opinion, Butch Clinton, former first lady, would be just as bad.

I personally believe that a backup plan is always a good idea in every scenario. That doesn't mean that I will not support my choice all the way, but he could drop out, or even drop dead. I don't want to be unprepared for what may happen six months from now.

Yes, at this point, I want to see Ron Paul win. As a matter of fact, I'm now signed up for his newsletters/bulletins and all but actively trying to promote him to the world. Did you not notice that I put a link in on where you can go to get free Ron Paul bumper stickers and such.

But if something did take him out of the race, I don't want to be stuck with Rude Rudy.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 09:47 AM
Do polls mean anything at all? Is it that they mean nothing, or only what we're told they mean? And who decides for sure? Look at this:

So does this mean Bush is wrong? The polls are wrong? What is wrong here?

And if there is a conspiracy to keep the polls from telling the truth, is this part of it? Maybe as a way to make us think that you can't trust them, so why bother even using them?

This is like quicksand, the further you go, the deeper it gets, and the harder it is to find solid ground.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 10:09 AM
Why is CNN stepping on Ron Paul? Simple, they believe he can win if they give him fair coverage. Letting a president into office that can not be strung up like a marionette puppet and told what to do is apparently a big no no these days.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 11:55 AM
A Fox, a Wolf, and a Whole Lot of Bull (1 of 2)
Second presidential where Fox news tried to attack Ron Paul.

A Fox, a Wolf, and a Whole Lot of Bull (2 of 2)
Fox news propaganda against Ron Paul.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 01:03 PM
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Read on more of his issues from the following link if you don't know where he stands.

This makes me come to one conclusion.

If you don't vote for Ron Paul then you meet one or more of the following criteria:

(1)Your an illegal immigrant.
(2)Your a family member of an illegal immigrant
(3)Your a politician who will lose money if hes elected.
(4)Your a family member of a greedy politician
(5)Your a farmer
(6)Your a family member of a farmer
(7)You like the government taxing your income(the exact money you labor for so that you can pay all the other GD taxes the Gov makes you pay)
(8)You have family in other nations that we give tons of money and security to.
(9)You beieve the war in Iraq is justified.
(10)You like the Government illegally snooping into your affairs and illegally listening to your phone calls.
(11)You are ok with Bush hacking the constitution up like its a piece of toliet paper.
(12)You don't have a family and don't like family values.

If you feel like bashing me with a reply then do so after you have read all of the issues in the above link I just gave.

Ron Paul is being silenced.....PERIOD!

There is no stopping greedy politicians!

Ron Paul has my vote!

[edit on 5/29/2007 by Termite197]

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 02:22 PM
Hoochiemama, thanks for the great video clip!
NGC2736, Thanks for the bumper sticker tip!

My stickers are in the mail.
I recommend checking out Ron Paul's site if you are on the fence.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 06:40 PM
Termite, read your post, did some looking, I'm now convinced 100%. It's done. I AM DECLARING early for Ron Paul. Ron Paul or it may be war; because it may be our last chance; because he seems to be the last person who wants to do the Right thing for America.

I know this thread has veered somewhat from where it started, but this is where the the truth seems to be. The polls will just have to change. I say, we need to all make our voices heard, and make the polls change by Action.

Flag the hell out of this sucker. Get more people to look at the facts. If we do not start now, and stay with this, we'll all need more ammo in the next few years.

If you have not read this thread, and you want what's best for America, go back and read the whole thing. And then take action.

Vote Ron Paul!!!

[edit on 29-5-2007 by NGC2736]

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by NGC2736
Why is CNN using old data to show Ron Paul at 1% of the voter pick? Does anyone think this is manipulation?

I just passed by the CNN news today at noon, and noticed that they are still posting a poll they took two weeks ago, as if it were relevant after the latest debates.

And when you notice that the scores are plus and minus 4.5-5% anyway, the thing is useless.

But, here's the point. It seems like they're wanting to hang on to this image of him being the most minor candidate, long after it is old.

And there was no other news about him at all that I could find. Are they trying to influence the casual website user into thinking he has no chance, so don't pay any attention to him?

Because CNN and the rest of the establishment are scared shirtless of Ron Paul.
Dr. Paul has made it clear that one of his first acts as president would be to dissolve the IRS. Imagine the belly aching from all those auditors without cushy G jobs anymore.Ron Paul is a dark horse,and he is gaining momentum.
On Topic, CNN are totally a democratic stronghold and are trying to preemptively shoot down any real threats to Hillary or Obama.

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 08:53 PM
sam, accepting that so many polls/news are in someones pocket, it stands to reason that there would be a maverick in the bunch.

Out of who knows how many polls, there ought to be a few that aren't 'bought'. I can even see where the Dems and Reps might work a deal, and cover each other, but there ought to be some that aren't 'in'on this.

Everybody that I talk to personally, who knows about Ron Paul, are almost all for him. And the ones I talk to that never heard of him, a great many are interested. (And now that they are 'watching' for him, a lot of these could be swayed.)

So the question that remains, and was mentioned by many, is how to force these news people to give Ron Paul a fair shot. I mean, a fair shot ought to clear up any doubts as to his viability as a candidate. What, aside from prior agenda, would keep them from opening up the door to him.

See, that is why I asked, at the start of this thread, for everyone to look at this as a conspiracy happening in 'real time'. We're here now, watching it seem to unfold in front of us.

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in