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.

 

Media acknowledges Ron Pauls lack of coverage, but says it doesnt matter.

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   


You might not know it by the media coverage, but there are two candidates from Texas in the Republican presidential field. One finished sixth in Iowa’s Republican straw poll last week with 4 percent of the vote. The other finished second with 28 percent. The guy who finished just 1 percentage point behind winner Michele Bachmann was not Rick Perry, the newest entrant in the 2012 White House race. It was Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian lawmaker from Lake Jackson, Texas, and third-time presidential contender.While Texas’ tough-talking governor soaked up the media spotlight, the cerebral Paul continued to plug away as the outsiders’ outsider in the 2012 presidential campaign. The 75-year-old congressman with the message of less government and more liberty has quietly built the largest grassroots network in the Republican field, far larger than the team thus far assembled by his home state’s governor. And although he gets precious little attention on the TV news networks – and is dismissed by political pundits as a libertarian “niche” candidate without broad appeal – the former track runner has been rising in the polls and remains a force in the Republican race.





“It may surprise you: I don’t know the governor,” Paul told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Thursday. “I don’t recall ever having met him.” They are sure to meet soon. There are three Republican presidential debates scheduled in the next month, and Paul has his sights set on Perry. “I’m very pleased that he’s coming in because he represents the status quo,” Paul said at the GOP debate last week in Ames, Iowa. “He’ll just dilute all their votes.”





Presidential scholars say Perry’s best strategy would be to avoid engaging with Paul. The reason: He risks a confrontation that would elevate Paul to the top-tier stature Perry now has and could provoke a YouTube moment that Perry would later regrets.


blog.chron.com... r-texan-running-for-president/

I dont like following any person to much, but i feel like hes our one hope left for america. Hopefully if not elected and problems dont get fixed, he'll lead the uprising.

And if he is elected i hope TPTB dont oppose to the point of assassination.




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Another Ron Paul thread bringing very important information.

Thanks OP.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
CNN's show "Reliable Sources" ran a segment this morning (albeit a very quick segment) about how MSM (CNN included) is completely ignoring Ron Paul.

In 1991, they did the same thing with a Southern Governor from Arkansas, who went on the Arsenio Hall Show to play sax in the band to raise his national profile, and became President of The United States for two terms.

They also did the same thing in 1979 with a Governor from California, a former actor, who was widely seen as not having a chance and who also went on to win two terms as President of The United States.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Just saw a commentary on FNC this morning on this subject. Some pundit saying how it's mainly because he doesn't stand a chance in the mainstream... well of course he doesn't because the majority of the country won't hear him because the MSM has no use for him. So there ya go, he isn't unelectable, he is simply unchosen by those who really control our political structure.
So for those who just want to see a fair race, we must use social networks, forums and word of mouth to tell the folks we know that don't pay attention that there are viable alternatives, and should they pick one of the not publicized alternatives then they too must make their voices heard. Ron Paul, or Herman Cain, both real world kind of guys, both very smart, both very capable....but listen to Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC,etc, it's who? Did you say Mitt Romney? Perry you say? ......Please..........



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I say come election day we, those that are going to vote for Ron, wait until the closing minutes before going and casting our votes. Screw with the numbers and let all kinds of speculation fly and then a mad dash of Ron votes come flooding in throwing all that speculation and rumors out the windows.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Another Ron Paul thread bringing very important information.

Thanks OP.


You know how you've been parroting on in various threads about how you are just trying to be a voice of reason, to look at Ron Paul from the opposite perspective to give balance?

I officially don't believe you any more.

Go away troll.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Well I'm having a hard time with the link, but it should be well known by now that many of the networks are owned by larger corporations. As an example, look at Microsoft and MSNBC(although Microsoft owns a percentage, it is the same for other corps.). Many, many networks have a lot of money invested in the current status quo simple due to the umbrella of other companies that they all live together under.

The internet is slowly changing this though.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
How do we make the general public, care about the less represented candidates? So many voters believe that if they vote independent, then their just wasting their votes, the same goes to canidates like ron paul that have no coverage. If you think the only way you can make a impact on the president is to vote for someone who is already close, your right. What we need is a new news network, that can stick to the facts and be seen as respectable and true (as cnn and nsbc are seen as most) that is owned by someone new, unafiliated with the MSM. This news network must be ran based on actual reporting, not just coping stories, videos, and articles from whatever news network reports it first, but only airing coverage and news that are personally verified and confirmed by their own reporters. No reporting a shooting in a school unless they themselves have contacted someone in the area theirself, no taking the word of any politician, but actually confirming themselves. Reporters dont report anymore, they just copy. you can find the same story from a hundred different papers with virtually no difference in the articles, word for word the same thing, the same quotes, maybe a different commentary, but no personal reporting. its cheaper to copy quotes already verified than to go out and report on your own.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join