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

page: 3
55
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

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?


You must be talking about the Messiah Obama, that will get you branded racist to be against the system.
Oh wait, Ron Paul already branded himself with his Newsletters, he got a snowballs chance in a very hot place of ever winning.
edit on 16-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Of course Faux News folks will say this, what is Ron running on ending? If you're talking about ending the Federal Reserve, all the folks on all sides are going to come out against you! How much $ is controlled by the Federal Reserve, how much do those billionaires stand to lose if the Fed is ended?

I'm surprised someone hasn't narked Ron out for pulling a Sandusky or something in an attempt to discredit him!

If Ron would start winning states, he'll be taking out... either by character or in real life.

Too much money to be lost, and we all know how the uber-elite love their money.

Derek



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

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?


You must be talking about the Messiah Obama, that will get you branded racist to be against the system.
Oh wait, Ron Paul already branded himself with his Newsletters, he got a snowballs chance in a very hot place of ever winning.
edit on 16-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)


I'll take a swing at that for Saucer.

What are you talking about Tinfoil?! I would assume if you are participating in modern political debate you would understand that Ron Paul has defended constitutional rights by word and votes for 30 years, whether or not you like the guy. It's kindof hard to derail support for a candidate like that, so I'd think you would 'know your enemy' by now.

Saucer was alluding to this week's defense appropriation bill, you know, the one which Pres. Obama insisted include the controversial provisions which allow U.S. Citizens to be detained by the military indefinitely without trial. Us 'looneys' believe Ron Paul is the kind of president that would reverse such an illegal, unconstitutional law.

As for the newsletter...sigh...You do know that that is the only bullet you have, right? I guess you could make some shiite up. That seems to be the standard these days. The newsletter was a loosely affiliated, independently written publication. It isn't some smoking gun that will destroy Paul's candidacy, unless you loosely refer to it as some huge conspiracy with no facts to back it up. Oh wait, that's what you did...

ETA: Oh wait, I see what you're doing. Write in a simpleton style to lower the guard of critics. Deflect the reference to losing our rights by playing the race card (in an anti-obama manner to gain legitimacy in the argument.) Sneaky you! Then switch gears with an unspecified open ended attack.
I'll give you a C+ for the effort. I am sure you just got hired on. Keep at it, I am sure you'll pick up some tricks.
edit on 16-12-2011 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
My husband heard someone else talking about how Iowa was a caucus and they only let older republicans that were mainstream and over 60 participate. It was on CNN Amanpour show - it wasn't her that said it though, it was a guest.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CREAM

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by CREAM
 


Paul also said any candidate on the stage could probably beat Obama, but I don't agree with that. I believe Paul is the only one with a chance to beat Obama, because none of the other candidates will create any excitement, or any decent turnout in the election. Obama will motivate and energize his supporters, the Republican puppets won't be able to do that.

Paul is the only candidate with the ability to defeat Obama.


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.


I am glad someone see's it

Seems like Paul represents himself more than his chosen party. Wallace and Fox News dont want him to hurt the republican nominee by running third party. His endorsment will become a bigger issue. And they will keep asking about his intentions if he loses the republican nomination. I think republicans deserve to know if he will consider hurting the party by sucking anti-obama votes away. They will want to know if he is just going to use the gop as a vehicle then ditch them when he loses.
edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo
edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
According to polls paul is tied with gingrich so the likely scenarios is a tie, what then msm? Can't discount it if it is a tie. Or if ron paul surges ahead, the msm can live in their fantasy world it makes more supporters for dr. paul cuz they see through the lies.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post 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?


Happens already. Both times Arizona voters approved Medical Marijuana in 97 (I think) and 2010 and both times it was overturned, the will of the people ignored. People who think their vote still matters haven't paid attention to an increasing number of middle fingers to the voters.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
lets imagine for a second that this was 2008 and Wallece was reffering to Obama.
Can you imagine the outrage?! There would be people lining the streets wanting Wallece's head on a platter.

Is it so wrong that the people can actually agree on a candidate? Does the country always have to be divided on who they feel the "best" choice for POTUS is?

It sickens me to the core that the masses will see these types of actions from the media and just eat it up as the truth. I pray to the almighty power that Ron holds strong and the people wake up to the blatent lies of the media.

Excuse me while I go throw up.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
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.


OK,
But add Peter Schiff for Dept. Of Treasury! TPTB would go freaking nutz!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
sounds to me like an admission that the republican party "wont count" any more.
if everyone votes for a candidate that none of the core republicans consider a true fellow republican, then obviously that means no one is voting for a republican candidate.

gee.. wonder why?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I hear these same talking mainstream media talking points that idiots are spoonfed constantly barfed up in conversations. It really shows how influenced people are, and illustrates how they're not intelligent enough to think for themselves.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
ATSers are simply amazing. One minute you guys say that the elections are rigged and then you all turn around and throw your support behind Ron Paul.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
stupidiest piece of so called news ive seen lately nah it wont it only counts if anyone else wins -_-



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
One word, one solution...

Guillotine!!


edit on 16-12-2011 by Clinton655321 because: uhhh.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


If he wins a few states but doesn't get nominated, and in response, he breaks off, it's a strong likelihood it would rip the republican party in half.


That's the problem here. The Republicans don't like him, but ditching him means splitting the party, and essentially killing their party's hope for the young vote, and the traditionalist vote.


Ron Paul can only win 10% of the party right now. But if he split after wining the state and being denounced, He could probably scoop up 20% of the Republicans, and maybe 15% of the democrats, though probably more considering he's more in que with what Obama promised but didn't really do. As a result, this makes him the 30% man, who also can vigor up some of the apathetic voters. This puts him in line to essentially crack the two party system into three parties.


Nobody wants that, because both sides know that 3 parties is what always precedes the death of a party and a politically active generation.

IE, it means they actually have to listen to the people.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
One thing I am tired of hearing is every time someone gets to ask Ron Paul a question they ask the same thing, and I've also noticed that Ron Paul has started to keep count, the question being; has Ron Paul considered running as a an independent?

The only reason they keep asking him this instead of the other losing candidates, is because there has been no sign that Ron Paul would even consider endorsing the winning candidate if he doesn't win the nomination. After the most recent debate, Paul sat with Hannity for an interview and Sean Hannity was fervent about getting an answer on Ron Pauls endorsement or 3rd Party run, the guy was tied in first place polling for that state and that is the most popular question still!

This has been the most blatant push for discrediting a nominee. Every pundit on Fox on everyone one of their shows, with the exception of Judge Napolitano and Cavuto at times, has openly expressed their opinion that Ron Paul is not good for the republican party and isn't going to win anyway, making sure to brush him off as cooky old fool. There's more support for Ron Paul on Msnbc and yet still Chris Mathews shows the same opinion as Fox as for not taking Ron Paul seriously.






edit on 17-12-2011 by juveous because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Reading all this, lol, it seems the best thing the GOP could do then would be to embrace him with open arms and hope he wins.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --William Colby, former CIA Director



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Fox news is simply a full fledged marketing campaign for the GOP

also water is wet

Is anyone suprised?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
For me this article is about a lot more than the opinion of Chris Wallace. This in my opinion is nothing less than an admission of just how deep the corruption goes. For starters,


“But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee.”


So what this statement is very literally saying is that the Establishment chooses your Candidates. If the people make a choice that is a different from the Establishment, well that is too bad. We know what is best for you.

Aside from that, again we have an Admission. We all KNOW that if Romney or Newt win Iowa that it will "count". They will all over the news as front runners to challenge Obama. So if Iowa counts for Mitt, if it counts for Newt, why would it suddenly not count for Ron Paul?

And again, our answer is highlighted by Wallace's comments. It will not count because the Establishment does not consider Paul a front runner and does not think he can win the Nomination.

SO what if they are wrong?? Well too bad. Again they know what is good for us.

This in my mind is clearly an admission from MSM that our Candidates and choices for President are planned in advance and chosen for us. There is no other logical conclusion to draw from this. Notice they are not saying Ron Paul does not have the votes. They are not saying he does not have the support. All they are saying is, "He can't win". And why can he not win? The answer is BEYOND obvious.. he can not win because the Establishment disagrees with his views.

And we all know... the Establishment knows what is best for us.

Dear Establishment, on behalf of Americans everywhere, I would like to say GFYS!





top topics
 
55
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join