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.

 

CNN's John King Admits That "Ron Paul Is 2nd in Delegates"

page: 1
19

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Searched around and couldn't find a post, so here goes! Short clip, but really interesting to hear CNN admit Paul is second in delegates. Pigs can fly, right?

Booyakasha.





posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by elg3cko
 


Good catch! I missed that when I was watching. I was just so happy that they actually talked to him after the debate. Usually they just talk to Romney and/or Santorum.

2nd in delegates sounds pretty good. Yes MSM, Ron Paul can win and is doing quite well. The Gingrich surge is over and I feel like the Santorum surge took a large step back tonight as he put his foot in his mouth more than a few times. Are we getting ready to see the Ron Paul surge? Maybe. He certainly did well in the debate tonight.

Thanks for sharing the video elg3cko.
edit on 22-2-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


I missed it, too, actually as I don't have a television and spaced out on the live link on-line; I happened to catch the vid from someone I follow on Twitter. I really do hope it is time for his surge, as you've said with the other candidates and their surges ended/ending, it would be great timing to say the least.

You're welcome!



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by elg3cko
 



Ron Paul will be the spoiler for the GOP...The only thing he's going to do is get Obama elected again. Sad but true...and Iran is going to cost America big time.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RightWingAvenger
 


That is certainly one possible outcome, sure. As far as the issue with Iran, though, I think if the general populace which for the most part do not do their own research, had their television give them a little history between the US and Iran, there would be a lot less of this push to attack Iran.

It wouldn't become a non-issue, but at the least the tensions could be reduced with an informed populace on both the Western and Eastern sides of the world.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
great catch i'm not able to watch the debates but i'll be sure to watch the highlights and such

super glad this was officially noticed and recognized

REVOLUTION PAUL



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
reply to post by elg3cko
 



Ron Paul will be the spoiler for the GOP...The only thing he's going to do is get Obama elected again. Sad but true...and Iran is going to cost America big time.



Your post intrigues me as that is how I feel about the other three republican candidates. Santorum and Gingrich are too far right to gain many independents (imho) Romney is a bit more moderate but nobody is under any illusions that he can take Obama votes away from Obama.

Ron Paul on the other hand is already taking Obama supporters, does well with Independents and has a entirely conservative and constitutional platform. The only time he gets boo's from the right is when he mentions his policy on Iran. I don't understand why so many people see Iran as a threat to anybody considering we have them surrounded with 45 US military bases. That makes me wonder how Iran can attack anybody without immediately being stopped. That's assuming they would even want to start an attack considering they would be committing obvious suicide for their country.

That is all a moot point anyhow as Ron Paul has said he would attack Iran if necessary, only that he would not use the war powers act, he would rather have the congress declare war first so as to act in a constitutional manner.

Anyhow, like I said, I see Romney, Santorum and Gingrich as being more of the spoilers in this case as they really don't seem very likely to defeat Obama as they have trouble pulling support from people outside of their party. Just my thoughts though.
edit on 23-2-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RightWingAvenger
 


I would say the GOP did themselves in and not Ron Paul. Romney, santorum nor the grinch are capable of beating Obama. Paul would be able to beat Obama if he had the media and the party behind him 100%. He is a true Republican. So he hasnt spoiled anything. It really shows to me that Obama has already been chosen for second term by the candidates that are being put forth.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by elg3cko
 


I wonder why the NY Times is reporting contradictory numbers... One of them has to be lying. I hope that it's the New York Times.

LINK



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by elg3cko
 

Its eerie to see two establishment minions like King and Cooper discussing and interviewing Ron Paul.

Wonder if Ron Paul takes a shower after dealing with so much scum.

Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence media beginning in the 1950s.

Anderson Cooper's CIA Secret


Anderson Cooper has long traded on his biography, carving a niche for himself as the most human of news anchors. But there's one aspect of his past that the silver-haired CNN star has never made public: the months he spent training for a career with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Following his sophomore and junior years at Yale—a well-known recruiting ground for the CIA—Cooper spent his summers interning at the agency's monolithic headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in a program for students interested in intelligence work. His involvement with the agency ended there, and he chose not to pursue a job with the agency after graduation, according to a CNN spokeswoman, who confirmed details of Cooper's CIA involvement to Radar.



edit on 23-2-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 

Dear sageofmonticello,

Good to see you again, you're rapidly climbing up my "favorite people" list. I've got a question or two for you, if you don't mind.

Assume for a minute that "left" and "right" does have a real meaning. (I think it does, and it seems you do, too.)

Santorum and Gingrich are too far right to gain many independents (imho) Romney is a bit more moderate but nobody is under any illusions that he can take Obama votes away from Obama.
Do you mean that Paul is further left than Santorum and Gingrich, and even Romney, who is more moderate than the other two?

Taking people as uninformed as they are (because we have to take them as they are), what do you think the right is afraid of in Paul's foreign policy? Do they think he's giving to much power to Congress? Do they think he's a secret pacifist who will allow the country to be surrounded and absorbed? What do you think it is?

Thanks for your time.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Charles1952, looks like we are running into each other quite a bit these days. Thank you for the kind words, the feelings are mutual.



Do you mean that Paul is further left than Santorum and Gingrich, and even Romney, who is more moderate than the other two?


This is a case where I failed to accurately describe what I was thinking about specifically. I wouldn't exactly call Ron Paul Paul further left than Santorum, Gingrich or Romney as a whole. My thoughts had more to do with specific stances on specific key issues. Issues such as gay marriage, foreign policy, the drug war and civil liberties.

I don't see Ron Paul's position on these issues as Left or Right but rather as a position of constitutionality. I guess honestly it comes down to ones personal interpretation of what being on the left or on the right means. I consider myself a Republican (if forced to choose one of the big two) and have been registered as one since I could vote but I often don't find my stance on issues is represented well by the right or the left. I would probably explain myself politically as a conservative libertarian, just for some insight to my thoughts on a whole.

When I mentioned Santorum, Gingrich and Romney as being too far right I was talking about extreme positions they take that I feel that the majority of Americans would find hard to agree with (though many certainly do it would appear). Though I wouldn't go and call Ron Paul more left by default of not being to the right enough as those on the left may want similar things but would go about creating such in a much different manner. Both sides it seems are more than happy to use force to apply their belief system on the other side. Perhaps he is a bit more left though in a way as his positions I guess could be labeled as moderate in that context.



Taking people as uninformed as they are (because we have to take them as they are), what do you think the right is afraid of in Paul's foreign policy? Do they think he's giving to much power to Congress? Do they think he's a secret pacifist who will allow the country to be surrounded and absorbed? What do you think it is?


From the people I have talked to within the republican party, I would have to say I am not really sure? They tend to parrot what has been said about him either in the media or by other candidates such as it is dangerous or isolationist in nature. If they are actually parroting statements or think that for themselves is not always clear.

I think the "War on Terror" and the attacks that happened on 9/11 have in a way created tunnel vision for a large portion of them. It is a sort of "if your not with us, your against us" atmosphere that has been created and I think the emotion surrounding these events prevents some people from thinking critically about the actions taken in foreign policy since 2001.
edit on 27-2-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 



Originally posted by sageofmonticello

...I often don't find my stance on issues is represented well by the right or the left. I would probably explain myself politically as a conservative libertarian, just for some insight to my thoughts on a whole.


I'm quite sure that single dimension of Left-Right is completely inadequate to describe one's political, despite the conditioning we receive to maintain that paradigm. In fact I suspect a huge percentage of us could better describe ourselves politically in a second dimension, one perhaps described in Individualist-Collectivist or Libertarian-Authoritarian dichotomies. I am sure that's where Paul and others find their crossover appeal.

I too am registered Republican but tend to vote for many Democrats or third-party. As regards Left-Right thinking I may fall more toward the middle but I always favor personal liberty over strict by-the-book rule.

Recently in some Ron Paul threads I have had the pleasure of some Non-Paul posters that confided some of their personal political view. In these cases they described themselves as "liberal" and favored a strong central Federal authority where law and community standards were completely homogenous with everywhere else. I expect they favor Globalism as well. They dis-favored Paul's States authority bent in favor of a one-size-fits-all type of government. I favor communities with a more custom-fit standards that are more tailored to their residents.

I dread living in an increasingly One Rule world. Some of us want nannies (or would like to be one) and others of us can and prefer to wipe our own backsides.


edit on 27-2-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19

log in

join