Chris Wallace: Iowa ‘won’t count’ if Ron Paul wins

Originally posted by tlshark
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

And that video is supposed to relate to the main stream voters? That video is supposed to convince people Ron Paul isn't supported by a bunch of radicals?

Look, I support RP as much as the next guy, if not more, AND I can tell you that video does nothing but "prove" everything people say about RP and his supporters.

For RP to have a chance, we need less of that type of support.

That guy makes videos about all topics on his YouTube channel, he is just "over the top" on purpose, a comedian, thats what he does, makes YT videos about everything.

He's not just some random Paul supporter. He's like a wanna-be YT celeb, doesn't mean what he is saying is wrong, just wanted to clear up who that guy is.

Put anyone's name in there.

If Romney gets elected, it won't count.
If Obama gets elected, it won't count.
If YOU get elected, it won't count.

It seems to me that this is America. Equality is how we roll.

Originally posted by tlshark
Look, I support RP as much as the next guy, if not more, AND I can tell you that video does nothing but "prove" everything people say about RP and his supporters.

It proves nothing of the sort. It is one man's opinion. But an opinion delivered with the conviction of a patriot that is feeling the pain, anguish and death a lot of people suffered to establish this country. That's the kind of guy you will see out on the front lines if the SHTF. He knows what's right.

Don't be so quick to paint with such a broad brush.

I just love how if gingrich wins, Iowa keeps its credibility but if Paul wins then the people of Iowa will be considered idiots. The only good thing about something like this is exactly what Paul preaches about in his foreign policy...BLOWBACK. If I were in Iowa and wasnt decided yet and heard something like this Id vote for Paul just out of spite for the MSM establishment saying something like this. Hell, even if I were decided Id prolly still do so.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

I'm curious. Do you think that people who want liberty from security rapes, public black bag disappearings off to indefinite military detainment, and sadistic attacks on other progressing countries to establish Al Qaeda there, are loonies?

Originally posted by Saucerwench
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

I'm curious. Do you think that people who want liberty from security rapes, public black bag disappearings off to indefinite military detainment, and sadistic attacks on other progressing countries to establish Al Qaeda there, are loonies?

Perfect! The msm would have all of us who believe these things branded 'loony'. Guess what? RP hit it out of the park last night, Rush Limbaugh said 'he can win', yesterday. The dam has been breeched. Common sense has entered the debate.

The Iowa caucus is not the end all, be all. It's just the first.

Huckabee won Iowa last time around and that got him, uh...nowhere.

Just sayin'

One thing RP said last night was brilliant slogan material, when he said washington was made up of those that want welfare and those that want warfare, and we can't do both. He's the right man at the right time.

Fox News is garbage. I just clicked on an election article and their are links in this order to clips on the candidates. Gingrich, Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum. NO Ron Paul clips! No excuses for Fox News, they intentionally left him out.

No surprise one of their talking heads would make a comment like Chris Wallace did. It appears to me there are some powerful people and organizations that don't want Ron Paul elected and Fox News is part of it.

www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by CREAM

Paul only said that so he didn't have to endorse any of the other candidates, I admit, honest Paul kinda dodged that one question, but like a real *Rick Ross voice* BOSS */* of Liberty would.

Yes! It was an evasive answer. They keep drilling him on whether or not he will run on a 3rd party ticket. It is impossible to answer, because if he says "yes," then he loses mainstream Republican support, because he is a traitor to the party. If he says "no" then he makes it ok to nominate someone else without worry of him stealing all their votes. The question is impossible to answer, so he has to be evasive, and so far he's doing a great job at it.

What they don't understand is that Ron Paul supporters are not going to vote for any other candidate regardless of Ron running on a 3rd party ticket or not.

The Republicans cannot win without Paul as their nominee.

Actually, let me back up a little bit, it is remotely possible that I could support Huntsman or Santorum, but they won't get the nomination so it is moot.

reply to post by getreadyalreadyDon't get sucked in by Santorum, he's a warmonger. Huntsmans the only second choice.

reply to post by dillweed


Who is the better VP, Huntsman or Judge Nap?

I think Huntsman is a wonderful VP choice, but I'm not sure he would accept it. The Judge would be an OK VP choice, but I'm afraid he would only reinforce the "extremist" image of Paul that is so often attacked. Huntsman would soften and legitimize the ticket without giving up any integrity.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Judge for VP, Huntsman for Secretary of State

LOL Jesse Ventura for Dept of Justice. ha!

That's my pick.

Oops! Double post.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Sure, but aren't they then discounting the voters themselves? Saying the voters don't matter? Saying an entire state doesn't matter? And what if he wins more states?

Absolutely. The GOP elite doesn't care what the voters want. That is my point exactly. Chris Wallace is just stating the truth, though. He's just the messenger. The media is telling us what the GOP heads think of their voters...

And, Chris Wallace is to blame, because his words carry weight. By saying this, he is possibly influencing voters in Iowa to not vote for Ron Paul, because they don't want their vote to "not count." Chris Wallace is directly and intentionally influencing the outcome of that primary and it should be illegal.

FOX News and MSNBC have been doing that very same thing for years, now. I just don't understand this particular outrage. It's misplaced, IMO. Rage against the GOP, yes... But the media is just the mouthpiece for the party. FOX is the GOP's mouthpiece and MSNBC is Obama's.

The media doesn't control the government. It's the other way around.

.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I agree, but I think that is the source of the outrage. We depend on the media to report the facts and expose the truth. When they become the mouthpiece for the government, their heads need to role, and some real journalists need plugged back into those spots.

This isn't supposed to be state-run media, and they aren't supposed to be controlled by the government, especially the individual talking heads on the network. Even if the network is controlled, the journalists are supposed to have some integrity.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by dillweed

 

Who is the better VP, Huntsman or Judge Nap?

I think Huntsman is a wonderful VP choice, but I'm not sure he would accept it. The Judge would be an OK VP choice, but I'm afraid he would only reinforce the "extremist" image of Paul that is so often attacked. Huntsman would soften and legitimize the ticket without giving up any integrity.

I agree, I had the chance to meet Huntsman a few days ago at an advent hosted by the company my dad works at, I will be kicking myself that I didn't go if he becomes VP.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I agree, but I think that is the source of the outrage. We depend on the media to report the facts and expose the truth. When they become the mouthpiece for the government, their heads need to role, and some real journalists need plugged back into those spots.

This isn't supposed to be state-run media, and they aren't supposed to be controlled by the government, especially the individual talking heads on the network. Even if the network is controlled, the journalists are supposed to have some integrity.

I agree completely that this isn't they way it's supposed to be. But blaming the media for what they report is like blaming the basketball for going through the hoop. It's not individual journalists who are owned by the government, it's MSM as a whole. We have to see it for what it is, not how it's supposed to be.

The GOP doesn't want Ron Paul for their nominee. THEY are driving the movement to discount Ron Paul. The outrage should be toward the puppetmasters of the GOP. The media is a joke and for entertainment purposes only. No, that's not how it's supposed to be, it's the way it IS.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
.... the journalists are supposed to have some integrity.

Those are notions from days past. Nowadays they are supposed to have a sense of servitude to master, integrate into the master plan, and continue being shills.

Ron Paul could be elected President and it wouldn't count.

Very interesting at fox news contact, Judge Napolitano's not there. Must be too many fair and balanced comments. They are so phony, how long before everybody wises up?