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.

 

Did Ron Paul drop out of the race?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
According to Wolf Blitzer and crew on CNN there are only three candidates. Also I have been hearing rhetoric from Santorum and Gingrich that they are fighting a three candidate race. So I guess we have come full circle, first they ignored him, then they paid attention. People voted for him but his votes were stolen, now the media is ignoring him again.

Lastly see the link below, I guess a win isn't a win when its a Ron Paul win.

www.ronpaul2012.com...




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


That Ron Paul guy? Oooooooh yeah... Yeah he never was really in the race


I mean the dude doesn't have many supporters.

*sarcasm



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


According to all of the MSM Ron Paul was never in the race, and that's why they mostly ignore him and pay more attention to twits like Sarah "I snort coke off of oil barrels" Palin.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The reason the media and candidates ignore him is that he is a serious threat to the establishment, and so they do everything in their power to make him not exist. Unfortunately for them, unlike themselves there isn't any honest dirt on Ron Paul to be had, so they're literally stuck with acting like he doesn't exist. Newt and Frothy in particular ignore and discredit Paul because he is their main opponent, as the leading anti-Romney candidate.

This isn't anything new at all, just remember that when they say it's a three man race, they should really be saying it's a one man race.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Sadly its true, I know many kids in highschool who know hardly anything about politics but have it clear Ron Paul is unelectable because of the media. They just poke fun of him at his worst and ignore him at his best.
edit on 13-3-2012 by tehdouglas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Ron Paul has 47 delegates so far. He's rarely polled above 10% except in straw polls blitzed by his supporters. You would think that with all this enthusiasm expressed by his supporters, all their noise, all their presence at state conventions, and all the money sent his way by his supporters, that he could at least win one state. Sorry, the Virgin Islands doesn't count.

Some of us actually have looked at Ron Paul, not ignored him at all, and our conclusion is that this guy is a complete nutcase who ought to be delivering babies rather than parroting someone esle's economic policy and who has no clue at all concerning foreign policy and no, we don't want him as President because he would be a worse disaster than Obama.

I know, I know. It's all "voter fraud." Because you cannot understand why people would support someone other than Ron Paul, that's the only conclusion you can come to. His supporters have blinders on and simply cannot see what is going on around them.

It's not that the rest of the world is ignoring Ron Paul. It's that Ron Paul supporters are ignoring the rest of the world.

Ron Paul does not have a snowball's chance in this race, fortunately.
edit on 3/13/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Right now Ron Paul has more delegates than most people are aware. Just during the last debate a guys from the station the debate was aired on admitted that Paul was second in the actual delegate count. The biggest reason for there being such a large discrepancy between the delegate count given by the media and the delegate that Paul and the news anchors are all seemingly aware of, is that the delegate totals given to use by the media are these fancy little things called "projections." A delegate projection is not legally required to be in any way accurate, or to reflect the reality of the delegate count. If you listen closely while watching the news you'll notice that the anchors always say "projection." Have you ever wondered why they do that? Well, now you're informed as to why they do it.

Just a short while ago, the Paul campaign released their delegate count, in which Paul had a pretty close second to Romney. Now, why is this so important? Well, it's important because the campaign did not call their delegate count a "projection," they simply call it their delegate count. Now, who here honestly thinks that the Paul campaign would put themselves on the target range for their opponents to destroy in court?

If that's not enough to convince someone that Paul does pretty well, how about the fact that he does well in the polls? A number of news stations have released polls to the public, indicating that Paul consistently does well when pitted against the other candidates, especially against Obama. Also, does anybody remember last year, when Paul was winning or receiving extremely close second place finishes in various straw polls? I remember very well just about every poster who isn't a Paul supporter giving no rebuttal other than something to the effect of "it's just a straw poll, they mean nothing," even the media has this attitude.

Although Paul does very well as a candidate, the media does its best to distort reality, in order to make him look unappealing. Remember when Paul was interviewed by a major news network, and the person interviewing him pestered him by essentially asking him the same question over and over again, and then the video was edited to make him look like he was throwing a fit? Yeah, the media does that, they do it all the time, they even get caught on occasion.

As if that weren't those weren't the only acts committed against Paul by the establishment, the media lied about Paul winning a popular vote! However, due to the delegate selection process of that caucus, Romney won most of the delegates. This is how the media lied about this event, the one time that Paul didn't win the delegates, they report on the delegate count, even though Paul came in first in the popular vote.

That all said, right now, even with the extreme media bias against Ron Paul, he's a very valid candidate, consistently coming in with good second place finishes, and winning a number of the delegate contests. Ron Paul has gone father than he has now in past, and with far less success. He will continue on, and he has a very good chance to make this work out.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



Originally posted by schuyler
Sorry, the Virgin Islands doesn't count.


I know what you meant to say, but taken out of context this sounds pretty disrespectful to the American Citizens of the Virgin Islands whom I'm sure appreciate their right to vote just like any other American. However, I won't be like so many ATS users who love to focus on one part of a post and make it a big deal that hopefully amasses enough momentum to make the rest of your argument seem silly.


Some more stuff posted by schuyler
Some of us actually have looked at Ron Paul, not ignored him at all, and our conclusion is that this guy is a complete nutcase who ought to be delivering babies rather than parroting someone esle's economic policy and who has no clue at all concerning foreign policy...


Come on now. Ron Paul must at least have some clue about foreign policy, considering he was a soldier, and has been a congressman for 20 + yrs. Being in the military, one would venture at least a guess that he has some idea about war with other nations. Being a congressman ( people that vote upon bills and whether or not our country should go to war or not ) I would even risk my neck and make an assumption of all things, that he has at least a clue about foreign policy. In terms of his economic policy ideas, maybe he's parroting them because they are actually ideas worth repeating? I know other figures in government who parrot Ron Paul on some issues. Some of them are even running for president.


Even more stuff posted by schuyler
I know, I know. It's all "voter fraud." Because you cannot understand why people would support someone other than Ron Paul, that's the only conclusion you can come to. His supporters have blinders on and simply cannot see what is going on around them.


IOWA

MAINE

SOUTH CAROLINA

I'd post some more links, but as a Ron Paul supporter I want you to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. It's not all voter fraud. Some of it is flat out incompetence. Or machines that make it difficult to vote the way you want to. Or showing up to a precinct and being told you had already voted. Or dead people voting. So again, it's not all voter fraud, but some of it might be. I can come up with other conclusions, even maybe perhaps that more voters voted for someone else.


Other stuff posted by schuyler
It's not that the rest of the world is ignoring Ron Paul. It's that Ron Paul supporters are ignoring the rest of the world.


If this is an aside to the idea floating around that Ron Paul is an isolationist, that's clever. If it isn't, then it's just wrong. First off, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He's pro non-interventionism, especially when he's fully aware that our military could wipe anyone off the face of the Earth but he rather not put our soldiers in an unnecessary harm's way, the last big war we were involved in didn't get Congress' approval to even happen, there's no proof that Iran has nuclear weapon capability ( which I actually in this case don't think is absolutely necessary to have war with Iran, hence my showing you that even Ron Paul supporters can disagree with Ron Paul), and the United States cannot afford to have another war right now.

Secondly, and I'm speaking for myself here, I'm a Ron Paul supporter who is not ignoring the rest of the world. Something tells me there are more.


Also posted by schuyler
Ron Paul does not have a snowball's chance in this race, fortunately.


If you honestly feel this way, then if the next few years under the presidency of anyone but Ron Paul ends up being terrible, you could have done something to change it. Assuming you're a voting American citizen of course.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
There are a whole bunch here that wish Ron Paul would drop out of the race, those who visit most every Paul thread to give their two cents. For someone who they claim has a snowball's chance in hell they really have a lot of words to offer. If Paul was so insignificant one might think they would not care to bother posting about him, try to ignore him like the MSM does.

So afraid they are that mean Dr. Paul is going to take away their nanny. Those folks really want their Uncle Sam to tell them when to turn their lights off at night and go to bed.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
It's funny that they are even calling it a 3 man race and including Gingrich because, presuming no voter fraud:

In order of most wins to least (total of 27 states):

First place wins: Romney (17), Santorum (8), Gingrich (2), Paul (0)

okay fine, that fits the MSM profile but then if you go further

Second place: Santorum (9), Romney/Paul (8 each), Gingrich (2)

Third place: Santorum/Paul/Gingrich (tie for 7 each), Romney (2)

Fourth place: Paul/Gingrich (12 each), Santorum (1), Romney (0)

Fifth Place: Santorum (1)

Aside from Romney's 17 "wins" it looks pretty evenly distributed. Certainly not enough to discount Paul altogether.

and Paul's got 6 more 2nd place wins than Gingrich despite the latter getting 2 1st places.
edit on 13-3-2012 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I heard Obama is going to get impeached..Obama should just drop out.Paul WILL NOT DROP OUT.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join