Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
55
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Rachel Maddow said much the same, only she said Iowa doesn't matter much regardless of who wins. She cited history over the last few decades and showed how Iowans tend to favor candidates that aren't popular elsewhere. In her words, she says that Iowa selects "Huckabees". Here's a video clip of her on Paul and Iowa:

video.msnbc.msn.com...

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




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by IamCorrect
 


Yeah , it dosen't Matter . Roadkill could Defeat Obama in the Next Election . As for Gingrich and Romney , Roadkill could Defeat them too.........



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
I would not pee on chris wallace even if he was on fire.


Agreed...

What a wast of good urine.

and time!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 
You seem to have this all well figured out. But don't stop now, continue to enlighten us, please?


That's right, play along like a good little puppet.
You are the exact target audience performing as expected.
Too bad there is no pay in it.
edit on 18-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Ron Paul is one of the few, if not the only, candidate who might restore some honesty, integrity, transparency, and sanity to government on the national level, particularly in the areas of state rights, monetary policy, and foreign relations. The last thing this country needs is yet another tool, pretty boy, or empty head (or some combination of these qualities), in the White House.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ancient Champion

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Fox news is simply a full fledged marketing campaign for the GOP

also water is wet

Is anyone suprised?


Yeah and CNN is a marketing campaign for the liberal base, so whats your point?


If you truely believe that
then what is msnbc?

CNN is middle of the road..just right wingers demand their fringe is the middle..they are wrong
msnbc is liberal. their commentators always speak the liberal side of things. Fox news is conservative..their commentators always do the conservative thing. cnn is neither..personally, being liberal, I see cnn as far too conservative and they don't do enough fact checking/questioning because they want to remain neutral. I am of the opinion that if remaining neutral towards a side means you must stop getting facts, then there should be no neutrality on the issue as its clearly true verses false instead of left verses right.

So your comparison is false. the actual comparison is msnbc verses fox..as those are two networks that "take sides". however, msnbc reports on ron paul accurately and quite often favorably (as favorably as they are for republicans anyhow).

Does msnbc try to steer elections? Well, there was a bit more coverage on Obama than the rest when he was doing his thing towards the end when it was the O verses H deathmatch...so to an extent, yes. I do not support such things. I can make up my own mind...just do the fact checking for me and let me decide. In saying that, I felt more comfortable with Obama than Hillary in front...but that was because H tended to spin in 12 different directions and contradict her ideals if she thought she offended someone. Obama just toughened up his stance out of a feeling that he was right...you can't make everyone agree with you.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
THIS IS A MUST WATCH! THAT IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE OP, YOU'LL LIKE IT!






posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unfortunately, what Chris Wallace said is very likely true. If Paul wins in Iowa, the GOP will discredit Iowa because they DON'T want Paul as their candidate.

I don't know why you blame Wallace for stating the truth...


Because it isn't true. This is all a head game to get Ron Paul elected. It is similar to what they did with Reagan.

Sociopaths like Mr. Wallace keep trying to say things that will inflame Ron Paul supporters and those that are leaning towards Ron Paul(effectively they are constantly forming a super strong base for Rep. Paul, because of the shared feelings of "persecution"/denial of rights/ perceived shared hardships).

And psychopaths go along with it and repeat the mindless meme that "he doesn't have a chance" and other nonsensical statements like "the GOP will discredit Iowa" just because they can. People like that like to be bullies. It get's their rocks off.

You can't "discredit" an election. A poll perhaps but not an election. And the GOP "establishment", better get used to it or get out. Because unlike the DNC, the GOP is very much based upon the Republican constituents(case in point the neo conservative purges that have been going on since 06-08ish) And the central Party has little real power.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


The guy being interviewed in the second video makes me think the Southern Strategy was a colossal waste of time. Look at how many ignorant inbred's saturated the Republican Party? The guy is preaching "it will discredit conservatism", ignoring everything else that is said. The guy is so stupid it is obviously he is confusing neo conservatism with conservatism as Ron Paul is probably the most conservative elected official in the GOP.

It seems the new psycho test is are you for or against Ron Paul. As I am beginning to see a pattern of psychopaths being against Rep. Paul in the most rabid kind of way that goes beyond reason or basic sanity.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


You do realize that this is exactly the criticism leveled at Obama in 2007, right? Psshaw! Only the kids and the wackos will vote for him, he doesn't matter! Jokes on us, folks. Those "kids" are entering college now, and they are the biggest generation of voter-age Americans since the baby-boomers. In fact, when combined with Y, they are far bigger than the boomers.

The corrosive level of political debate in this country has energized the various bases, but at a cost of raw numbers. Meanwhile -- the middle 20% has grown. These kids represent a huge chunk of that; for the most part -- they aren't married to the party of their parents (yet). Properly mobilized, they could elect ET, because neither "party" has enough voters to elect a president anymore in a first-past the post system. The independents do that now, every single time.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


If I were to use Chris Wallaces Reasoning on this issue , then What is the Point of sending Delegates to the RNC to Support their Chosen Candidate if their VOTES Won't Count ? Talk about BLANTANT CHEATING , this Guy is Nuts ! .........



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
6 pages and not one post actually attempting to explain why Iowa would matter if Paul lost or won. You all know Iowa does not matter, never mattered, and will not matter. You just do not like Wallace talking about Paul.

I want one person to explain to me why Wallace is wrong no matter how Paul does. Please?

I honestly do not understand why any of you care about something that is
1- fairly new in American politics.
2- has a failure rate of 95% in picking a viable candidate.

Anyone?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I see the "His win won't count" tactic is out in force...

Roger Simon of Politico Via MSNBC; "If Ron Paul wins Iowa, we just take it out."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

They sure are putting a lot of effort into discrediting, marginalizing and dismissing him. Aren't they. Makes it easier for the sleeping masses to not have to give a second thought to doing the same. Poor helpless cattle.

Maybe they do deserve what they're going to get after all.

Are there any thinking people left? Anywhere?

Someone draw me a map so I can join them and ride out the last few years of global fascism in relative safety, doing something productive to help others.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Cool, you tell me why his win in Iowa will matter.
Please be realistic about this.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Cool, you tell me why his win in Iowa will matter.
Please be realistic about this.


Is that a philosophical question, because if it's not then you're literally asking me why will his "win" will matter.

Answer me this:
Why are they trying so hard to sway public opinion against him? If he doesn't matter.
edit on 12/24/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


No, it is a question question.
What are you talking about?
I did not ask why HIS win would matter.
I asked why any win in Iowa would matter.
If you do not want to or cannot answer, please do not try to change the terms of my question to find one you can answer.

Iowa never mattered before. Why the hell does it matter now?
I guess I forgot what amazing presidents Bob Dole and Pat Robbertson were?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


The subject of this thread isn't the usefulness of the Iowa caucuses. That debate is larger than the both of us.

I appreciate your opinions though, and would like to address your questions in the future. Possibly in a thread about why the Iowa caucuses matter. Or why they don't.

Now... back to the MSM's marginalization of the candidate.
edit on 12/24/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


FOX News Painfully Admits That Ron Paul Will Win Iowa
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by freakjive
Okay, first Rachel Maddow covered it in her show last night.


On Monday night’s The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC’s liberal politics host examined the strange Republican primaries of Iowa and Minnesota, concluding that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has actually won both states, or at least tied for first place. “Perhaps the most off-script thing that has happened on the Republican side… Is that I think Ron Paul has just won Iowa,” Maddow said, referencing the badly mangled January primary election. “Uh, seriously. This weekend.”


Let's not forget Minnesota either:

A similar thing happened in Minnesota, she added — albeit, without the chaotic returns. “With half of [Minnesota's 40 delegates] locked up, Ron Paul cannot come in worst than first,” Maddow said. “And it should be noted, he warned us this was going to happen.”


Now we have the reluctant coverage on Fox:



From the video description:



Notice how they're trying to spin the story in a way that suggest that Ron Paul might not win Iowa. The truth is, there is no way that he can't win Iowa. Worst case scenario, he will be tied for first.

This scenario will only happen if former Santorum supporters move over to Mitt Romney. The chances of this are slim, especially since Ron Paul now has the evangelical support that used to be Santorums.


We had been awfully quiet on this board until the last week or so in regards to Paul threads. I was afraid that the movement was dying. Well, it's really just getting started.

Cue the shills...

Related Threads:
Ron Paul still in the race...
Ron Paul won Minnesota
Ron Paul IS BEATING Romney!
edit on 4/24/2012 by freakjive because: (no reason given)


Chris Wallace needs a wake-up call. Ron Paul's gonna phone it in!
Go Ron!!





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join