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 Asks Ron Paul To Drop Out & Endorse Romney Despite His Chances To Win

page: 6
70
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 

Its amazing when, on this site, you find someone who is on the same exact page as oneself.

"The invisible hand of the market" has enough control over Americans as it is. Its ironic to see people complain about corporate greed and in the next breathe declare they are voting for Paul.

Its just weird.




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


I know LOL... it's not exactly a popular opinion to hold on here (or any CT site).

If you haven't seen this, it's useful...



I imagine you have though


Luckily for people such as ourselves Paul has no chance...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
And this is a great example of why I quit watching any of the cable news companies such as CNN, Fox News or any of the others, and started getting my news from other places. (ATS)

It's amazing when you step back from the MSM and realize just how little they are reporting on, can be considered news at all.

I got sick of the spin and opinions that true Journalists are not supposed to offer. I got sick of the bias. Now I come here and get my news. Yes here. ATS. I get the facts, minus the spin. Sure an occasional opinion but it's pretty easy to look past an OP's opinion and just see the news piece for what it is.

It's nice, not being told what to think.

But I digress, what this CNN anchor did was disgusting. She came across as condescending, uninterested, even almost annoyed that she was talking to him. I was fully expecting her to roll her eyes at some point in that piece that CNN jokingly calls an interview.

Paul answered those questions perfectly. All I can say is, shame on CNN or any other news company that interviews ANYONE, in such a disgraceful manner.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 



I was not aware that the terms 'conservative' and 'libertarian' had been perverted so much. Thanks for posting, I had not seen that.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
It's quite interesting to me, that some who proclaim to know so much, can relay so little of their supposed knowledge.

And, how so many who disagree with Dr. Paul's ideologies and doctrines, and who constantly preach against him and claim he has no chance at winning a nomination, much less the Presidency, can spend so much time on threads that support the man!

I would venture to guess that such folks either re-read their own posts numerous times both before and after pressing the "enter" button... Or, don't read them at all...?

I wonder which it is?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

....but if becomes president, he will flop bigtime, and both sides will use the fail as a reason why to never go with independents.



I'll take my chances, since the decades of presidents have been degrees of failure.

I am writing in Ron Paul no matter what happens, in the election process.

For me it's a matter of principle and ethics.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


My pleasure.


Here's a great quote from Chomsky about the US definition of Libertarian:


Chomsky: "Libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority. If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds.

The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred. The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

edit on 11-5-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
They are pushing this because only Ron can beat Obama.

Romney guarantees an Obama re-election and minimal disruption in the corruption.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Why doesn't Ron Paul quit? That is a very easy question to answer. It's a three man race. The world economies are falling apart with each passing day, and as the deterioration advances, Ron Paul's message will increasingly be seen by more and more Americans as the best option for America. Obama is totally worthless and incapable of crisis management without increasing the national debt to monsterous levels above and beyond the current nightmare debt we currently have. Romney is status quo...he knows nothing else. His answer to running the country is based on his business smarts, learned from the very system that is dissolving, and political wheeling and dealing...adjusting his views as appropriate to advance his own success and forgetting any hypocracy along the way. Status quo spells doom for the United States. Additionally, both Obama and Romney state they would attack Iran, placing American blood on the line and forcing even more dollar devaluation as the Fed revs up the printing press into mega-overdrive. As the election process continues and the worldwide crisis evolves, Ron Paul will overwhelm the other two candidates in the common sense catagory and the final debates will become epic events. In a nut shell, upcoming black swan events will shape voter opinion, from which only Ron Paul can gain. Ron Paul would be a fool to quit, and he is no fool. I look foward to Ron announcing his third party run at the Republican National Convention. His chances of becoming POTUS, much to the horror of the MSM, will be better than ever.
edit on 11-5-2012 by fockewulf190 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by merkaba93
 


Not even vaguely true. As I have shown the news media has a habit, around the world, or asking candidates to pull out of elections... of implying that by staying in they're hurting their own party and helping their opponent. It's not just Paul and is no evidence of anything at all.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Many of us who support Paul are well educated on his stances and policies, and ideas. (And yes, we harbor no illusions that he'd actually win, but we can at least hope to send a message. After all, whether Obama or Romney, we're still in the same corporate puppet boat...so doesn't really matter).

As for Paul talking about money, that's because the money issues are the IMPORTANT ones. Abortion, Racism, Gay Marriage, etc., etc. doesn't mean JACK to my paycheck or livelihood, so I could really, politically, give a rat's arse about them. They're "fluff" issues.

The Economy, Job loss, increasing Deficit, etc., etc, This stuff MEANS something to me...yet it's the kind of issue Obama has dodged addressing during his entire term.


What it MOST reminds me of is the completely delusional beliefs about Obama in 2008... everyone thought he was some sort of super hero, when, if they'd looked at his voting record, they wouldn't be surprised at what he's done as President.


I said it during the entire election back then. The guy rarely even showed up to vote, let alone actually DO anything while in Congress...so I was completely baffled as to why anyone thought he'd do any differently in the Oval Office. The only time I see him on TV is when he's on vacation somewhere...(and I thought Bush had a lot of vacations...)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by fockewulf190
 


That recent poll that showed Romney beating Obama put support for a third party candidate at something like 4%... dream on.


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.


www.rasmussenreports.com...

There is one poll that asks about a three way race.. and guess what.. It ended up with Romney winning...

There's no polling data to suggest Paul, as a third party candidate, would do better than 13%...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
It's true....the MSM realize that under the rule of certain characters...their power wanes....Ron Paul is our best bet in returning to an age where advertising must be true....omg...do you not remember those days? well...I am old....the 70's were filled with 'truth" in advertising....but we have allowed them to lie and cheat now....time for a re-boot and return.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


ezkool.com...

www.factcheck.org...

George W Bush took many more vacations than Obama...


During George W. Bush’s two terms as president, he spent all or part of 977 days at Camp David or at a ranch in Texas.


That's 2.5 years out of 8 on vacation...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 

Very scary stuff man. Cant imagine what it would be like to live in a Darwinist society like that.

I am not understanding where all his support come from? Is it a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly the implications of his policies are?


I just do not understand people who want to live in a world where private powers go unaccountable. Quality control of food? Never. Public schools with oversight? Unconstitutional, apparently.

Our system isn't perfect, but making it better is the key. Not getting rid of it all together.
edit on 11-5-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helix2112
It's true....the MSM realize that under the rule of certain characters...their power wanes....Ron Paul is our best bet in returning to an age where advertising must be true....omg...do you not remember those days? well...I am old....the 70's were filled with 'truth" in advertising....but we have allowed them to lie and cheat now....time for a re-boot and return.


Thats not one of Mr. Paul's policies...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Your looking at the situation as of today. I'm saying that the current world economic situation is so unstable, Ron Paul can only gain as the election process continues, especially if black swan events occur. Ron would be a fool to end his campaign.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


Exactly. Replacing democracy with corporate boards is massively unAmerican.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


It's all about what you count as vacation. Most don't consider Camp David days into it, as that location is just as much a job site as the Oval Office or Air Force One. I didn't claim he takes more than Bush (no President has), but just that the ONLY time I seem to see him on TV, is a shot of him on vacation...vs. actually DOING anything Presidential.


Exactly. Replacing democracy with corporate boards is massively unAmerican.


Do people think THAT is what Paul is about? Paul is way more about returning to some of the original Constitutional ideas. I never got anything remotely like that from reading his stance on issues or his voting record. I'd bet Romney would simply salivate over such a prospect though, or even gay for pay Obama. (i.e. his recent announcement only 48 hrs after a Washington Post article that major gay/lesbian organizations were withholding campaign funds because of his stance on the issue).


edit on 11-5-2012 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


You might consider the roll the media plays in the impression you have.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join