Why is it so hard to believe that people don't like Ron Paul?

This is probably on the wrong site since this has a size able amount of Ron Paul supporters, many of which are also members of his "fansite." So if you want to flame go for it.

This Question has been in my head for a while and many other Americans are probably wondering the same thing.

Why is it so hard to believe that the American People just don't like Ron Paul?

Every topic is about the Main Stream Media ignoring Paul, Manipulating Polls etc.
Few Legit polls have him in double digits,(Last Polls I've he been around the 7-10% range.) He's hovered around 4th-5th place for awhile.

If this was the 80's-90's one could make the argument that maybe The American Voter is not being told everything. But we are in a socially connected generation, in the age of Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Blogs, Vlogs (video blogs for those not PC literate) etc.

If the American voter wanted to know about any candidate they could log on to the internet and find out. They are not blinded by the big bad establishment media. Today we have ways of fact checking basically everything that comes out of someones mouth, we can look up a candidates history, info about their family, what they voted for while in public office, how they ran their businesses and etc.

My Point being if there was a "media blackout" against Paul or any candidate, it can easily be overcome, by an intelligent voter or potential voter.
The fact that Paul still has a lack of support (he's not leading any legit polls)outside of his fan site, this site and a few other groups, could possibly basically mean maybe voters just do not care about this guy. Maybe they consider him unelectable. Maybe they just don't like the guy.
It's not because there is a "Main Stream Media Conspiracy" to ignore him.

People have researched him, and they have said "No Thanks"....again.
That's all there is to it.

reply to post by StarPeace


What do you not like about him?

Originally posted by StarPeace
This is probably on the wrong site since this has a size able amount of Ron Paul supporters, many of which are also members of his "fansite."
This Question has been in my head for a while and many other Americans are probably wondering the same thing.

First, don't be persuaded to not express your thoughts just because you think that the support is in the tank here for Ron Paul. If you have such thoughts that you are in the wrong place, then ATS is blamed for allowing that to foster.

Second -- You have a valid question. It is one that many are faced with whenever a debate or discussion occurs with a "typical" (not all of course) Ron Paul supporter and someone who does not agree with Ron Paul.

Every topic is about the Main Stream Media ignoring Paul, Manipulating Polls etc.
Few Legit polls have him in double digits,(Last Polls I've he been around the 7-10% range.) He's hovered around 4th-5th place for awhile.

This I have to argue against. The MSM is in the business of picking and choosing winners and losers and making good TV. Ron Paul has good sound-bites (hence my theory why he has averaged the least amount of speaking time in debates) but is dry to listen to. When he gets fired up, it becomes muddled in ideological ramble (again, my personal opinion.)

If this was the 80's-90's one could make the argument that maybe The American Voter is not being told everything. But we are in a socially connected generation, in the age of Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Blogs, Vlogs (video blogs for those not PC literate) etc.

Now instead of the media and the local chatter at the water cooler, we have the social pressures from other places. There is no difference.

If the American voter wanted to know about any candidate they could log on to the internet and find out. They are not blinded by the big bad establishment media. Today we have ways of fact checking basically everything that comes out of someones mouth, we can look up a candidates history, info about their family, what they voted for while in public office, how they ran their businesses and etc.

My Point being if there was a "media blackout" against Paul or any candidate, it can easily be overcome, by an intelligent voter or potential voter.
The fact that Paul still has a lack of support (he's not leading any legit polls)outside of his fan site, this site and a few other groups, could possibly basically mean maybe voters just do not care about this guy. Maybe they consider him unelectable. Maybe they just don't like the guy.
It's not because there is a "Main Stream Media Conspiracy" to ignore him.

People have researched him, and they have said "No Thanks"....again.
That's all there is to it.

Media blackout? Not so much; anyone argue that is trying to push their agenda. Media deciding who we hear and who we don't? Absolutely that occurs. But you are correct -- it is the responsibility of the individual to be involved, specifically in the Primaries. That is where we effect the most change when it comes to the President of the United States of America.

As far as your "legit poll" comments -- what constitutes as a legit poll? Polls are inherently skewed even when we say they were objective. No question is completely objective and will always have an inherent subjectivity to it based on the goal of the poll.

I don't understand it either OP. While I like Ron Paul, I don't think everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. I'm also sick of these retard poll threads claiming he's killing it in the polls. He kills it on internet polls because a huge part of his fanbase is very vocal online. Ron Paul fanatics are as bad as the Obamatrons. He is not going to step in and fix everything overnight.

All that being said I really like and respect the man and think it would be good to have him in charge for awhile.

Originally posted by ApolloBloodline
reply to post by StarPeace

 

What do you not like about him?

Nothing Personal Against Paul this is all political:

In my own opinion I just do not see him beating Obama. That's my opinion.
I'm concerned about his age. (May sound personal, but the POTUS is a stressful job.)
He seems a bit radical in my opinion.
Promising to do something while running for Office is Easy.
Actually doing it, as proven by many previous presidents is very difficult. (Especially if it involves congress)
I have doubts he could do some of the things he claims,
Other things that he has promised I disagree with.

To the average American, the guy sounds like a nut. He is just too radical to convince a traditional democrat or republican to change their stance. Sad but true

i love when supporting basic freedoms is considered radical and how you could actually expect the average american voter to put any more effort then watching the news every few days to decide their candidate. (if they even know what a news channel is)

And what would it matter if he didn't do anything if he got into office its not like anyone else would be different. just another brick in the wall.

Originally posted by StarPeace

People have researched him, and they have said "No Thanks"....again.
That's all there is to it.

edit on 13-11-2011 by StarPeace because: (no reason given)

You're wrong on that one. There are plenty of people that haven't researched him, majority of people that actually take the time to look him up like him. That is why he doesn't lose support (like other candidates) and steadily rises.

Its like there is a misfit mentality to everything thats popular. They dislike something that has a large following for no reason other than they do not want to be a sheep/follower. Not all are like this, some have reasons.. Whats your reason OP. I know the same can be said about the supporters. The reason i support Ron Paul is because he is consistent and doesnt back down. even if he doesnt become president I wont feel like ive wasted my vote.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I agree that the media are giving him he shaft. You watch the debates.. it's sort of obvious.

Im finding out that most people don't like the Constitution(or freedom).

So do you like Mit?

Do you like Cain?

Do you like Bachman?

Perry?

etc..

Originally posted by robile
To the average American, the guy sounds like a nut. He is just too radical to convince a traditional democrat or republican to change their stance.

it's sad that supporting the Constitution and the rights of US is considered "radical" to you.

Yea "radical" to the elitists.

reply to post by dannotz


I object to your only giving bachmann 3 ... she's like a 7 on that scale at least.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


So it's his responsibility to ask himself questions at a debate?

If you actually watched the most recent debate, it'd be obvious to you that there is an effort to keep him from speaking.

CBS after the affiliates split and those cut off could watch the online stream, gave Ron Paul a bit more time.

In 2nd hour he mentioned Awlaki's 16 year old son killed by US assassination drone.

Cut to 49 minute mark to watch the remaining debate after split.

the real question for me really is..

who would you rather pick and how can you do that with a clear conscience knowing that person will make efforts to "extend the empire"...

let alone any other topic...how can you vote for anyone who is willing to continue those wars? ...

Originally posted by robile
To the average American, the guy sounds like a nut. He is just too radical to convince a traditional democrat or republican to change their stance. Sad but true

edit on 13-11-2011 by robile because: (no reason given)

I fail to see how Ron Paul is radical. In my opinion Obama is the radical one. What's so radical about following the constitution?

Here's a Conspiracy that ties in Ron Paul.

Both Russia and America polluted themselves in the Cold War and we ended up destroying our kids DNA from the dioxins/toxins in our air, water, soil. So Russia-US came up with a Joint Plan to fix what they did in the fake Cold War.

America left its southern border open to bring in +45 million Latino's.
Russia brought in millions as well, Slavic women/muslims.

The end game is they want their white people supporting sane Politicians who'll never get elected. They'll protest and stop joining our militaries.

Then Russia-US will have a fake war somewhere's where we will send our Latino boys...Russia will send its Slavic/Muslim boys.....to go fight in a fake war where we don't want them to come back from.

There will then be a massive pool of good DNA females in both countries so lots of babies can be made to fix our Joint DNA problem...from all the Dioxins/Toxins that destroyed the white boys DNA.

Question is where will Russia-US have this joint fake war to fight each other....where we don't want those boys coming back?

Originally posted by dannotz
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

So it's his responsibility to ask himself questions at a debate?

If you actually watched the most recent debate, it'd be obvious to you that there is an effort to keep him from speaking.

When did I say there wasn't? I said there is hardly a media blackout, but the media is most assuredly picking and choosing who they want to be the message. Maybe next time read and comprehend the whole of what is said rather than seeing a key-word and then responding.

Even in defense of Ron Paul, Ron Paul supporters get defensive...

Reply to post by Pervius

how would sending the U.S. latinos AND the Russians slavic/muslims to war correct our kids "destroyed" dna? That doesnt make any sense to me..

Where does anything you say tie in Ron Paul?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com