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.

 

If only the American media gave Ron Paul the same attention as RT

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Change might actually be possible.




The Maryland primary is less than a week away and one specific group candidates like to attract is young voters. Hundreds of them showed last night at a Town Hall meeting at the University of Maryland to support Texas Congressman Ron Paul.


Maybe there is hope for this country.


edit on 30-3-2012 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
it sure would be great if he got the nomination,last saturdat santorum was in my hometown and he barely filled a bowling alley.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
It's the media the media the media. MABUS = mNaBbC US = NBC US

Just throwing that out there for the fun of it. Really.

edit on 30-3-2012 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
You know, it might just be possible that Paul isn't as popular as you all think, and it might not be the dang dirty media that's the problem. It might just be that more people DON'T like Paul's platform than do like it.

You know, silly things like forcing the poor to home school their children, making abortion a federal murder charge, things like that, might not resonate with the masses the way that you all think it should.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
You know, it might just be possible that Paul isn't as popular as you all think, and it might not be the dang dirty media that's the problem. It might just be that more people DON'T like Paul's platform than do like it.

You know, silly things like forcing the poor to home school their children, making abortion a federal murder charge, things like that, might not resonate with the masses the way that you all think it should.


Or perhaps it's partly a case of, as seems apparent here, people getting a twisted message of what Ron Paul is all about.

Ron Paul does have a sizeable movement behind him. He also has a fairly large movement working against him. Most of the populations just doesn't know, are apathetic and don't really care enough so are easily influenced by the media and the "whisper" campaigns moved along by his detractors. Protected interests view him as a threat to their politically purchased privileges and don't want him rocking their yacht.

Paul's message may be much more powerful than what a politician's office holds, congressman or president even. Liberty contains a responsibility many may not be ready for, but worse, liberty is a direct threat to those who have worked toward the people's enslavement. Many, however, are ready to reclaim their liberty. Though apathy has captured the vast legions there are two factions that are motivated and quite vocal, and Ron Paul is what is rolling off their tongues.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Everything I know about Ron Paul comes from Ron Paul's own campaign website. So tell me how I am getting the wrong message again?

Unlike many who do rely on the news and pundits to tell them what to think. I read for myself, and decide for myself. And that decision is to NOT support Paul. I do believe that they should give Paul more airtime, only so that his views can be expressed personally without the filter of his supporters. That way, people will have the opportunity like I have to understand this candidate and make an informed decision.

I don't support Paul. I don't like his ideas, I don't think that determining that life begins at conception (thereby making all abortions murder on the federal level) is something that anyone who claims they are for liberty should decide for the rest of us.

I don't think that it's a good idea to force the poorest Americans to home school their children thereby creating a wider rift between those that have means to send their children to private school and those who are without means and in many cases probably haven't been educated enough to educate their own children properly.

I don't like Paul's statement of faith, in my opinion religion has gotten too far into our politics as it is. And I for one do not want this country to slide into a theocracy.

These are decisions I have made by studying Paul's official campaign website, how am I getting the message wrong?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Everything I know about Ron Paul comes from Ron Paul's own campaign website. So tell me how I am getting the wrong message again?




...silly things like forcing the poor to home school their children, making abortion a federal murder charge, things like that...

Or perhaps it's partly a case of, as seems apparent here, people getting a twisted message of what Ron Paul is all about.



I don't support Paul.


I appreciate you do not support Ron Paul and I applaud you for studying the candidates and making up your own mind. It seems likely a twist may have been given to those statements about his stance on those issues, though I cannot find where he calls for making abortion a federal murder charge and forcing the poor to home school as your provided link only goes to the home page of the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee website. Would you be so kind as to post quotes from that site where you derived that take on his message?


edit on 30-3-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 



Would you be so kind as to post quotes from that site where you derived that take on his message?


Ugg, I have done this about 2 dozen times now.

It's all under the issues tab on his site.

Here's his stance on home schooling... www.ronpaul2012.com...


* Help parents better educate their children by providing parents with a $5,000 per child tax credit for tutors, books, computers, and other K-12 related educational needs.

* Ensure that the federal government treats high school diplomas earned through homeschooling the same as other high school diplomas.


See, Paul thinks that a two income household barely making it should be reduced to a one income household and thinks that he can offset this cost by giving people a 5k tax break. Thus, widening the gulf between the rich and the poor.

and here's his stance on abortion... www.ronpaul2012.com...


* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”


Defining life as beginning at conception would make abortion murder under federal law. It wouldn't matter what the states did, because under the federal government any doctor or expectant mother that ends a pregnancy would be guilty of murder. Thanks to Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act"

People should really read what their candidates really say.

Here's his other problem, his statement of faith... www.ronpaul2012.com...


“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

-Ron Paul


Sorry Paul, but you are supposed to do the will of your constituents, not the will of your religion. This isn't a theocracy it's a Republic.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Fact is, Ron Paul is drawing crowds like a rock star. Which makes no sense. For a guy who is polling dead last, and comes in dead last in every primary (lately) he keeps drawing the kind of crowds other Candidates dream about.

It really makes me think there is more fraud going on than some of us expect. I just have a tough time believing that people would take time out of their day to go hear him speak, but would fail to take time out to vote for the same guy. That just does not add up in my mind at all.

A perfect example of what I am talking about can be found in Wisconsin just a day or two ago. Joe Biden comes to Wisconsin and speaks to a crowd of 150 people. Ron Paul comes to town and speaks to a crowd of 5,200. If pictures are worth a thousand words, then here are a few thousand words.




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Maluhia
 

If they did, he'd be our next President. And that cannot be permitted.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
There are other mediums besides mainstream tv. These Russia Today clips should be going viral, people should be tweeting them for example.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The fact no media outlet even acknowledges Ron Paul or questions his proposed policies with a fair and balanced debate should be enough to piss people off. Hes just as eligible as the other three choices.

Lets talk about what 3 candidates think about health care, and not even acknowledge the Doctor running for the nomination...

Seriously. Its not rocket science to see how feeding three candidates to the public and shunning one will spread the votes in favor to the three who get mentioned and coverage. But thats America for ya. Gotta be told who to vote for, told they require health care or be fined, whats okay to think and say. Thinking for oneself is just too hard these days I guess.

People have become dependent on the government to make the choices for them. Problem is those guys have been bought out and vote on whatever their benefactors want them to vote for. The public has been removed from the equation. Its all downhill if people don't realize this.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Thanks for posting the specific links.

As regards Home Schooling I see noting there compelling anyone to pursue that route against their will. There is proposed tax-break measure only to assist those choosing Home Schooling to make that more affordable for them. I can understand people's objections to public schooling and favor better availablility of other options.

As regards Paul's Religious leanings I suggest that is a personal matter for anyone. I respect that his religious beliefs are not brought to the forefront of his public campaign addresses as a means of pandering to those segments of society as many candidates do. Almost all candidates have been asked that by interested voters to disclose their religious leanings. While I do not share his personal beliefs I do not hold his against him.

As regards Abortion this is the one issue you bring up where I feel you are not over-reaching. Almost every Republican candidate professes to be Pro-Life - with the notable exception of Romney who has made statements putting him on both sides of the issue. I have read over the Sanctity of Life Act - which Ron Paul is sponsor. The wording tends to leave the authority up to the individual states but passage of such an act I would agree with you it likely would have such impact to ban abortion outright under federal law. This could be why it does not make it out of committee.

Summary of Sanctity of Life Act 2011 - HR 1096 www.govtrack.us...

3/15/2011--Introduced.

Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 - Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act and the amendments made by this Act applicable to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment.


I myself would be more Pro-Choice but do not agree that choice need be protected in all states under federal mandate. Worse would be that that choice could be prohibited in all states as it was prior to 1973. That should be a concern for anyone. Fortunately it has a very low probability of passing (8%).

Thank you for taking time to be specific and posting your objections. It has been quite helpful. Star for your last post.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 



As regards Home Schooling I see noting there compelling anyone to pursue that route against their will. There is proposed tax-break measure only to assist those choosing Home Schooling to make that more affordable for them. I can understand people's objections to public schooling and favor better availablility of other options.


The GOP has always been against education for the lower classes. Paul is no different on this issue. The reason is, if the poor are uneducated, it creates basically a slave caste, ready to work for the rich for far less than their actual value. Keeping people dumb is a classic government tactic in order to control the masses.


As regards Paul's Religious leanings I suggest that is a personal matter for anyone. I respect that his religious beliefs are not brought to the forefront of his public campaign addresses as a means of pandering to those segments of society as many candidates do. Almost all candidates have been asked that by interested voters to disclose their religious leanings. While I do not share his personal beliefs I do not hold his against him.


It is a personal matter. Personal not political, for Paul to announce that every decision he makes is based off of his religion, it is offensive to his constituents. He is elected by the people to do their will, not god's. I don't personally care what a politician believes in, in their own private life. But the second that faith crosses the threshold into the political arena, to me, that person is completely un-electable. You can believe anything you want on your own time, I really don't care, but his "statement of faith" to me is a statement of religious zealotry. America is not a Theocracy, why so many people put so much importance on a person's personal faith in an election is baffling to me.


I have read over the Sanctity of Life Act - which Ron Paul is sponsor. The wording tends to leave the authority up to the individual states but passage of such an act I would agree with you it likely would have such impact to ban abortion outright under federal law. This could be why it does not make it out of committee.


I can also appreciate Paul's sentiment about state rights. It's something that is important to voters. However, there is also personal liberty that must be protected, and "Paul's Sanctity of Life act" removes that personal liberty from the individual. The reason that abortion made it to the supreme court in the first place, is that states themselves don't have the right to take that liberty away from the individual. In my own personal opinion, a fetus doesn't have the right to life until it can sustain that life on it's own without being what amounts to a parasite to the mother. It's a harsh definition I understand. But without that viability, I can't see any other option than leaving it up to the host of said "parasite" whether or not she wants it in her body. It's never an easy decision to make for any woman. But it's hers to make, not the states, not the federal government.

This is why Paul should not be elected.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I love Ron Paul and would do anything to see him elected. It would be the first time in a long time that we haven't elected a fox to guard the chicken coup. But alas tptb will never let it happen, and not only that it may just be that the american people are just that uneducated that he losses not because of fraud, but because of poor media coverage and therefore poor, uneducated choice in candidate. He could just be drawing huge crowds because his supporters are so active.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
RP supporters are more fervent but less compelling than other people. He draws crowds but he doesn't win elections, tells me his supporters just aren't as willing to 'get out the vote' for him than other candidates.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 



tells me his supporters just aren't as willing to 'get out the vote' for him than other candidates.

That's not true. He is getting a raw deal from the media - who, unfortunately, most people listen to. They ignore him for the most part and if not, dismiss him as a crazy old man.

This is beside the fact that voter fraud against him has been proven - again - ignored by the media.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


I don't see the pressure about home schooling, seems he wants that option to be better recognized when it is selected. Low-income workers is why I thought we have our back door open to Latin-American labor, and the reason they are kept illegal is to make them more compliant and non-demanding workers after the Cesar Chavez labor union thing back in the 70's. Public education is already geared at programming rather than education. I think home-schooling can be a better option in many cases.

I don't see Paul spouting-off about his religious convictions much, certainly not a Santorum, or any number of other Repubs especially. It's a kiss of death for a presidential candidate to openly announce he is a disinterested agnostic so most of them will at least try to say they'd go to church more often if they weren't so busy trying to make the world a better place. No fault for Paul there IMO.

I am concerned about the abortion issue and agree with your "parasite" analogy. That is where I disagree with Paul most strongly. But since R vs W we've had many pro-lifers that couldn't overturn it, and many have tried. That is typically Democrat/Republican divide on that issue almost without exception. I can't think of a more compelling reason to vote Democrat if there is any question about a "lesser evil" selection of candidates. Paul strikes me as straight-forward and honest, what-you-see-is-what-you-get.


Paul resonates well on liberty issues, much better than any other out there. I just don't see a better choice this go-around. He has my vote so far. I have been voting since Nixon and have voted for several different parties in that time. Any consolation to anyone disagreeing with me is that I have only voted for ONE winner in only one election and that was Clinton's first term. I mostly was voting against Bush and damned glad he was kept to one term, which was already three too many.

Thanks for an intelligent discussion. -Eron


edit on 1-4-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If the evidence towards Ron Paul gaining the majority of delegates in multiple states turns out to be correct, and the true delegate count is vastly different to what is being being claimed, then where does this leave the mainstream media and Republican Party?

Nobody is suggesting that Paul will march to the convention and sweep up the nomination with a majority of delegates. But, if the numbers are different enough to what the media is claiming to deny Romney the nomination, then can the MSM honestly just turn around to the public and say 'sorry guys we got it wrong'? They are stating their delegate count as fact, when in truth very little is so far confirmed.

Will the MSM admit they are wrong before the convention and amend their numbers, or will they be made to look like fools and liars later on? Surely it would not be possible to push Romney through without a true majority of delegates, would it? TPTB have shown they can rig the state primaries and caucuses to varying degrees, and apathy and ignorance in the general American public accounts for alot of the (to us) odd results. But it doesn't seem likely they could rig the convention itself without the wider public catching on.

Of course it is entirely plausible that Romney will win the required delegates 'outright' (I almost wrote fairly!) before the convention, and if so then they won't have a problem. Also, I know all four candidates have stated they are in it until the convention, but what would happen if Gingrich or Santorum were to drop out and endorse Romney? TPTB could surely make that happen through whatever means they have, and use party unity as an excuse for the endorsement.

I am certainly no expert on Republican nomination proceedure, but I have studied US politics for a year now and consider myself to have at least a reasonable grasp on how things work (or don't work) across the pond. I don't know how likely a brokered convention really is, but it could result in a very uncomfortable situation for the MSM and the wider Republican Party as a whole.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Why would the media pay attention to Ron Paul? He is a long time politician who has never managed to do anything while in office. He has run for President 3 times and alway polls at the bottom. This time Paul has tried a smart tactic using the anti war stance to get college students interested. The problem with that is they will turn out for a rally but not to vote. I honestly think Paul gets way more coverage then any other bottom feeder in any past election ever.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join