It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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?
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?