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 a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama... why isn't the left winged media pushing Ron Paul??

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
So I got railroaded in my last thread, I guess I put too much into it.

What I would like to know is if a vote for paul is really a vote for obama and Ron Paul is splitting the republican vote, how come CNN, Msnbc, and all the other left winged media... why aren't they pushing Ron Paul.

Why aren't they showing the corruption in the republican conventions and focusing on Mittens corruption and disregard of the rules and laws.

It comes back to the fact that there isn't a Republican or Democrat party in the top ranks of either, there is only the Establishment and they don't care who wins between Romney or Obama, because they have selected both to run.

This whole election is a scam, it doesn't matter if Romey or obama wins because we will still have government controlled health care and still be in mulitple wars, and still be crapping on the constitution.

here is a link to my last thread with more info:Ron Paul vs Establishment


edit on 10-8-2012 by Doalrite because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


Because while it does steal a vote that would likely go towards the Republican they also detest, hate, and most important fear the ideologies of Ron Paul. He's to dangerous to push.

You're also assuming the media actually distinguishes between parties.. really doesn't .. the Liberal Media hates the right fringe, they love Neocons, and Romney's a Neocon. To them one or the other really doesn't matter, they'll bash on whoever wins either way to detract our attention from the real details.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I think there is still great value in a vote for Paul. It is clear to all at this point that Paul has zero chance of taking the election in 2012, yet if enough people cast their votes for him, it sends a strong signal to the Republican party leadership that they need to start taking Paul's version of conservatism seriously and backing away from the neocon coolaide.

Think long-term, beyond merely the "lesser of two evils" for this election cycle, and think about influencing the longer-term conservative ideological DNA. Vote Ron Paul, even if it is "hopeless" in terms of a 2012 victory.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


why isn't the left winged media pushing Ron Paul?

The general M$M is too stigmatized as Left Wing and radical.

But that doesn't mean that "special" Left Wing infiltrators haven't been using some other clever ways


I bet they are.

They know the "Paul" votes will help Obama.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
I think there is still great value in a vote for Paul. It is clear to all at this point that Paul has zero chance of taking the election in 2012, yet if enough people cast their votes for him, it sends a strong signal to the Republican party leadership that they need to start taking Paul's version of conservatism seriously and backing away from the neocon coolaide.

Think long-term, beyond merely the "lesser of two evils" for this election cycle, and think about influencing the longer-term conservative ideological DNA. Vote Ron Paul, even if it is "hopeless" in terms of a 2012 victory.

I both agree and disagree. While there is definitely great value in being true to yourself and supporting those who best represent themselves (and I don't feel Paul is *hopeless* in the 2012 election cycle - very unlikely is where I'd fall), I honestly don't think the republican leadership cares about signals, or even winning elections.

As was pointed out by a member on another thread earlier, I don't think the republican party leadership honestly cares about winning elections as long as their priorities are met - more foreign control, more control over the personal lives of citizens, etc. (on a side note, if anyone could help me find the quote I've been looking for it for a long time now - according to a page I saw once, in the 20s a congressman - I believe - essentially stated that the republican and democrat parties were two halves of a whole with the same goal playing both sides against the middle to achieve the big picture, merely milking the sympathies of their followers on different issues that had no effect on the greater outcome: big government and control).

Obama and Romney's policies are quite in tune when weighed honestly (especially in light of Romney's shifting positions on essentially every issue), and I'd like to see someone convince me that the smaller details matter much to the party leaderships otherwise. Wars go on,government weighs in on essentially every aspect of our lives (which ones differing as to who has the most influence at any given moment), and so on.

Yes, support for Paul's ideal's matter as they might clue people into realizing that there's not a great deal of difference otherwise - when was the last time a major government policy shifted, regardless of who was in charge? The facts of the matter seem to stand on whether or not the government having a say one way or the other really matters or not - or if it's best to simply get the federal government out of these issues altogether and give us greater control on a more local level so we can really live as we choose to instead of having the tiniest number of wizards thousands of miles away from most of us deciding they know what's best for each and every one of us.

Some are afraid of the possible results, but I stand by my assertation that it's easier for us to march on our state capitols and demand change from those locally accountable to us than it is to demand our "representatives" far removed to enact it when they are so easily bought by those on the national scene.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
That's like asking why McDonald's doesn't spend money advertising the Wendy's across the street from Burger King. Sure, Paul will steal votes from Romney (unless the internet Paulites chicken out) but it's still in the Democrat's interest to just keep promoting Obama. Paul will already take a handful of votes from Obama, no need to risk increasing that total.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
That title Alone, is enough to explain to me just how threatened the status-quo is becoming. Eventually there will be no way for them to stymie the Citizens rights, to go take government jobs out of the hands of politicians.


you Don't hear Obama asking people well if you can't vote Romney or Me vote for Paul.

They have used that same tactic for years, they did it to Perot as well.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Because there is not enough RP supporters for it to make a difference



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Think long-term, beyond merely the "lesser of two evils" for this election cycle, and think about influencing the longer-term conservative ideological DNA. Vote Ron Paul, even if it is "hopeless" in terms of a 2012 victory.


I'm not sure there will be a "long term" to think about if we get railroaded with 4 more years. I agree that it is damn pathetic that we're once again stuck with a lesser of evils vote, but the last 4 years have been way too costly. No point in digging the hole any deeper when it isn't even clear we can ever dig out from where we are now anyway.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Because there is not enough RP supporters for it to make a difference

Ho, RealSpoke - this was both well and ill said.

If the media had pimped Paul as strongly as they did Romney, or dismissed Romney as openly as they did Paul - to level the playing field and give both the same fair shot - I'd imagine you'd find a much different picture. The Pew Research Foundation and many other sources could likely verify the same.

Some independent research on actual candidate's support as compared to candidate's followers based on media impression would likely be very telling. There were only two candidates in both the 2008 and 2012 election cycles with any measurable level of grassroots support, and each time they were both Obama and Paul. Paul set records in pretty much every measure - all time fundraising records, attendees, Meetup groups - I'm not sure what else you can figure in here.

A fair test might be the number of financial donors at any early stage of a political campaign - and if you can find any republican who beats Paul there, I'll eat my hat on live video (quite painfully, perhaps).

But if the media shuts you out - as can be proven - those who only watch various media outlets will obviously be influenced to consequential degrees (as I feel Jerry Doyle proved quite clearly in his video analysis).

Romney is a media creation pushed to those obeying the party dictates as proscribed by its leadership. And unfortunately, as with most things that are wrong, that is the majority.
edit on 8/10/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Pretty ignorant. If you live in a county such as mine where the difference between Republican and Democrat is 1-2% losing even half a percent to a 3rd party is live or die for your campaign.

Will Paul supporters steal an electoral votes? No. But they very well could tip the percentage in favor of Democrats. Just like Democrats tried to marginalize Nader and suffered for it.

Or even worse...

Not vote at all. Give up on the system because all it can do is crank out corrupt douchebags like Romney and Obama.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


To which the lesson is: Americans are incredibly ignorant, gullible, stupid creatures. They pick the side that the TV tells them to. It's not about politics, about ideologies, about who would run the country better. It's about representing your team, or when standing in the booth picking the person who first comes to mind because some political ad or something a pundit said stuck in your worthless mind.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Praetorius
 
To which the lesson is: Americans are incredibly ignorant, gullible, stupid creatures. They pick the side that the TV tells them to. It's not about politics, about ideologies, about who would run the country better. It's about representing your team, or when standing in the booth picking the person who first comes to mind because some political ad or something a pundit said stuck in your worthless mind.

Rockpuck, I have to disagree with you as well.

This is not purely an american phenomena as far I can tell, it's one of human psychology. Everyone wants to pick a winner, and if they're convinced - however unfairly - who the winner will be, or who is worthy of voting for and who not, the numbers will side accordingly.

It's a matter of people being willing to put in their own research as compared to believing what they consider to be trustworthy sources. It's just a shame our sources suck.
edit on 8/10/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


It's not an American phenomena but since we were discussing American politics I left it to Americans less I offended some European and or Canadian sensibilities.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Doalrite
 


Because while it does steal a vote that would likely go towards the Republican they also detest, hate, and most important fear the ideologies of Ron Paul. He's to dangerous to push.

You're also assuming the media actually distinguishes between parties.. really doesn't .. the Liberal Media hates the right fringe, they love Neocons, and Romney's a Neocon. To them one or the other really doesn't matter, they'll bash on whoever wins either way to detract our attention from the real details.


I think your pretty right-on. I think the left will push Ron Paul after there is absolutely zero chance of him getting involved in the primary. Both sides are scared of him and won't touch him until Mittens has the GOP in his pocket.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
That's like asking why McDonald's doesn't spend money advertising the Wendy's across the street from Burger King. Sure, Paul will steal votes from Romney (unless the internet Paulites chicken out) but it's still in the Democrat's interest to just keep promoting Obama. Paul will already take a handful of votes from Obama, no need to risk increasing that total.


This is an ignorant statement on many levels, IF your going to use micky d's and burger king then Romney would be mcdonalds and Obama would be booger king.. the news is suppose to report.

Wouldn't be in favor of Obama if the media reported not on Pauls policys or speeches but on the way Romney treats his fellow republicans. How romney doesn't condem the blantent fraud his campaign has committed.

And before you tell me about his "following" newt gingrich.. rick santorum.. what kinda following do these doododidoos have. The media still puts them on to weigh in. As of now the media is claiming all sorts of things about mittens which aren't even factual they are just slinging mud..



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doalrite
So I got railroaded in my last thread, I guess I put too much into it.

What I would like to know is if a vote for paul is really a vote for obama and Ron Paul is splitting the republican vote, how come CNN, Msnbc, and all the other left winged media... why aren't they pushing Ron Paul.

Why aren't they showing the corruption in the republican conventions and focusing on Mittens corruption and disregard of the rules and laws.

It comes back to the fact that there isn't a Republican or Democrat party in the top ranks of either, there is only the Establishment and they don't care who wins between Romney or Obama, because they have selected both to run.

This whole election is a scam, it doesn't matter if Romey or obama wins because we will still have government controlled health care and still be in mulitple wars, and still be crapping on the constitution.

here is a link to my last thread with more info:Ron Paul vs Establishment


edit on 10-8-2012 by Doalrite because: (no reason given)


Wait...WHAT???

A vote for any of them is a vote for the SYSTEM. Nothing more.

Now...let's talk about this Ron Paul/Obama thing that either you, or someone you talked to fooled you into believing. And if you didn't BELIEVE IT, it certainly affected you to the point where you actually made this thread.

A vote for Ron Paul is more like a vote for Romney...even though it really doesn't matter since both sides are bought by Goldman and Sachs.

Nonetheless...take a look.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Here's Ron Paul meeting with Bernanke-
blogs.wsj.com...

Ron Paul's whole goal was to run the undercard for Romney so that any other opposition would not take delegates. He was purposefully used to appeal to the politically dissatisfied (The Occupy Movement) and to bring them back into trusting the system itself without them rioting or causing destruction. He said all the right things and made all the right promises. Once this was achieved, Rand Paul would be able to expand his political career within the GOP for greater monetary and political access. -Hence the reason why he ran as a republican to begin with-

If you believed in Ron Paul, you were clearly played. NONE of these politicians have your best interests at heart and they are all owned to the very core. If you really believed Ron Paul as anti-establishment...you have to ask yourself, "How the hell has he lasted this long?"
edit on 10-8-2012 by Serenity777 because: to add...



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
The left wing is scared to death of Ron Paul. Thats why.
If he was the actual GOP nominee- they wouldnt stand a chance.

Thats why earlier on when Paul was still a main contender, they did everything in their power to drowned him out.

And it worked.

Dirty tactics and misrepresentation is what these two parties are all about.

He was the peoples choice- and the tops dogs dont want someone that cares for the people. They want their bought and paid for cardboard cut outs who will do as they say, when they say it.

-That said, the last thing most Paul supporters will do is vote Obama. Some might go to Romney, but a majority of us are still waiting to see how things pan out before we go throwing in our vote for someone we dont believe have any of our interests at heart.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Because he is absolutely no threat and outside of the internet isnt taken seriously. Ive warmed up to Paul lately but be realistic. If he ran against Obama he would lose by an insane margin. You do make an interesting point OP and I like where youre head is at but there is no way Paul could contend against Obama.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
Because he is absolutely no threat and outside of the internet isnt taken seriously. Ive warmed up to Paul lately but be realistic. If he ran against Obama he would lose by an insane margin. You do make an interesting point OP and I like where youre head is at but there is no way Paul could contend against Obama.


I disagree, if he ran against Obama he would still get all the Republican voters that want Obama out. Few people really likes Romney anyway, many are just voting against Obama, so Ron would still get all of those people.

Plus he would steal anti-war Democrats, adding to his numbers while taking away from Democrat numbers at the same time. He would have a better chance against Obama than Romney IMO.
edit on 10-8-2012 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join