Why isn't Ron Paul doing better?

[mjmacky]

Sorry, not a grammar major - just got on a rant about the truth and couldn't stop Hopefully the way Obama is trying to deceive everyone is not lost on everybody.

Obama turned out to be exactly what I expected him to be, a presidential politician who managed to get a few long awaited policies through that have been made nearly redundant through compromise. That's not very new. The recent SNL opening (host: Buscemi) covered the prez's significance pretty accurately, almost.

And Ron Paul was one of the very few people in Washington who had the courage to be skeptical of Bush's "weapons of mass destruction" claims: lies that were thoroughly deconstructed in the foreign press and the internet yet never questioned by the American MSM.

From what I remember hearing, the kickback coverage of that issue was a little tit for tat. Unscrutinized coverage of WMD for lax FCC regulation/fines. Not certain about the truth behind that, but there certainly has to be some reason why there was so little skepticism at that time about that issue.

[zot]

From what I remember hearing, the kickback coverage of that issue was a little tit for tat. Unscrutinized coverage of WMD for lax FCC regulation/fines.

I'm not sure what you mean. The "equal-time rule" has always been shredded when it comes to taking the nation to war. In WWI&II dissenters could expect jail.

Not certain about the truth behind that, but there certainly has to be some reason why there was so little skepticism at that time about that issue.

Maybe because whenever a country is being whipped up into a war hysteria, no one wants to be branded a traitor -- and face harsh scorn and retaliation, perhaps on the level of being a child-molester. I myself had faced a lot of hostility and I've lost friends over disputing the WMD hoax. Neighbors stopped talking to me. (and let's not forget the Dixie Chics and what happened to them) If I had to do it over again (and be the lone dissenter in my social/professional circle) I'm sure I'd keep my mouth shut and just swallow the Kool-Aid propaganda like everyone else.

I think that's exactly why no one in the corporate news media dared to challenge a flag-draped president about war.

Just my opinion, but I also doubt that Ron Paul was really in favor of the invasion (and likely occupation) of Afghanistan when he voted for it, but realized that the tide was much too strong to fight against. (and looking back, wouldn't it have been so much cheaper to have just sent in Seal Team 6 in 2001?)

[mjmacky]

I'm not sure what you mean. The "equal-time rule" has always been shredded when it comes to taking the nation to war. In WWI&II dissenters could expect jail.

Maybe because whenever a country is being whipped up into a war hysteria, no one wants to be branded a traitor -- and face harsh scorn and retaliation, perhaps on the level of being a child-molester. I myself had faced a lot of hostility and I've lost friends over disputing the WMD hoax. Neighbors stopped talking to me. (and let's not forget the Dixie Chics and what happened to them) If I had to do it over again (and be the lone dissenter in my social/professional circle) I'm sure I'd keep my mouth shut and just swallow the Kool-Aid propaganda like everyone else.

I think that's exactly why no one in the corporate news media dared to challenge a flag-draped president about war.

Just my opinion, but I also doubt that Ron Paul was really in favor of the invasion (and likely occupation) of Afghanistan when he voted for it, but realized that the tide was much too strong to fight against. (and looking back, wouldn't it have been so much cheaper to have just sent in Seal Team 6 in 2001?)

So what I mean is that the FCC is used as leverage against Media Corporations. Dissent and compliance can both be punished and rewarded through the system of regulation and censorship. It's not that they even needed to start the path of dissent, they could easily schedule guests that offer criticism on the validity of WMDs, and at the least the connection to Al Qaeda for fuck's sake. So not only was there basically a complete lack of dissent from almost every outlet, but very little criticism offered. NPR at the time did have a sane viewpoint, but they're not produced in any sensationalist way so that didn't produce any major following.

The vote against the Iraq war included 1 Republican senator and 6 Republican representatives. None of them played a role in the next election cycle, and for the democrats only Kucinich was very outspoken about this in 2004 during the primary cycle, and at that time I became a huge fan of his public career. He didn't tend to follow an ideology, he looked at things from a public viewpoint, i.e. how does it affect the public in whole (basically he's one of the few to serve office that ever adhered to the spirit of the role). I knew he wasn't electable though, due to his willingness to announce, articulate, and back his platform; as well as denouncing and rejecting corporate financial backing for his candidacy run. If you aren't ready to buddy up to corporate interests and powerful lobbying groups, you're kept out of major offices, plain and simple. So basically I kind of see Ron Paul in a similar way as I have seen Kucinich, a genuine interest to represent the people (and in a similar way is an ideological representative of the people that voted him in his congressional seat).

However, taking politics into consideration, it's a bit naive to expect to take on large competitive elections in that manner single-handedly. These types of politicians would need to take to the campaign trails in full force to get truly representative government. No more corporate campaign donations, less immunity to severe criminal activity, complete transparency for lobbying activities (most genuinely interested lobbying groups would not have a problem with this).

P.S. Does it irk anyone else that there's a member in the legislature named Rand Paul. That could easily be pronounced as 'Ron'.

[zot]

I've come to the conclusion that most people choose to live in a bubble of fantasy and simply don't want to know about things that upset their distorted viewpoint of the world.

In the case of the Iraq war, all the damning information was already out there, if anyone cared to look. Pentagon insiders like Col. Kwiatowski had written articles about how intelligence data was being intentionally distorted and mis-represented to the public. How the CIA's established channels had been shortcut and undermined by Cheney's setting up a parallel operation within his office of hand-picked "analysts" who basically said what he wanted them to say. The Iraqi dissident known as "curveball" that the CIA considered a liar. The roll of a tiny but influential close-knit network known as the Neoconservatives. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

The truth could be found all over the internet that the Iraq "WMD" was a huge conspiracy of propaganda, that all the crap being shown on TV every day had been thoroughly debunked many times over. Yet most people preferred to put on their blinders and march behind Fox News & co. beating the war drums.

I used to print off copies and hand it to people who I argued with, to show them I wasn't just some kook who made it all up. So what would they do? They'd hand it right back without even glancing down at it. I thought I was doing people a huge favor by taking the time to educate them about the lies that were being told, or even things like how war propaganda since WWI has been conducted. But it soon occurred to me that my efforts were about as welcome as a "Holocaust Denier" lecturing a Brooklyn synagogue.

But that is the great thing about the internet; people are not forced to rely on America's controlled news media for information. Propaganda-free British Newspapers like the Manchester Guardian and The Independent exposed the Iraq war lies, and their websites were flooded by US readers. Though sadly, this was only a tiny percentage of the USA citizenry who didn't consider it apostasy to question the President and independently seek the truth. (and I suspect that the next bullshit war won't be too much harder to ram through over an unsuspecting public)

The Ron Paul "Revolution" could never have even got started without the internet. but until more people question the mainstream media and seek outside sources of information, it's hard to imagine someone getting into power who stands against the established, entrenched political/financial system and its enablers and cheerleaders the corporate media -- who will always strongly oppose such a person who can't easily be compromised, corrupted, or bought.

[nntpjunkie]

The time is NOW!

[zot]

The smear campaign has begun with a bang. Since moving to the top in the Iowa polls, Ron Paul is now finally being talked about in the MSM news ... but everything being said about him is negative.

It's funny how CNN cut up and re-spliced his interview to make it appear as something it was not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078343/Raw-footage-shows-Ron-Paul-DIDNT-storm-CNN-interview-racist-newsletters--interview-simply-done.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[999969999]

If Ron Paul doesn't end up winning the primary, should he run as a third party candidate in the general election?

I think so, and here's why.

I am sick and tired of Republicans pretending to be fiscal conservatives just long enough to get into office and then once they get to Washington they end up becoming Democrate Lite, and end up compromising to the point that they betray the very people who got them elected.

I would rather let Obama have 8 full years to screw up this country to the point that it becomes painfully clear to most Americans that liberal policies simply do not work, and what we really need is a true fiscal conservative in the white house and true fiscal conservatives controlling both the senate and the house, so we can finally slash government spending to the bone and stop running a deficit year after year after year.

If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the general election, I will vote for him.

At this point, I can't bring myself to vote for Romney. He is just too liberal. This will be the first presidential election for me as a voter, and I hope I will be able to vote for someone with which I agree.

Is that asking too much?!

[mjmacky]

and end up compromising to the point that they betray the very people who got them elected.

It would be better if you listed some examples of when they betrayed corporations that invested into their electoral victories.

[999969999]

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blo...he-candidates/

http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/04/re...-austrians-now

"Last night Ron Paul told his followers that “we are all Austrians now,” and they cheered..."

Is it any wonder why I like this guy?

[999969999]

And why shouldn't the wealthy want additional vacation houses?

What is the point of working hard and taking risks with our money if we don't get to spend it however we choose to spend it?

Why not just sit down on a sofa, watch t.v., and wait for the government to deposit money into our accounts each month?

And this is the problem with Socialism, just as the Soviet Union found out when they gave people no incentive to work hard, they did just enough to get by and coast, and their system collapsed around them.

Greed, whether you like it or not, is the natural state of man, and it is what propels the economy forward.

Well, that's all for now. I have to head back to Oregon and start studying for final exams.

I love the fact that you are so quick to lump yourself in with the rich. It's from your "hard work", right?

You really are jealous of me. Oh well.

The reason I mentioned vacation houses is because my family is taking advantage of the steep decline in housing prices to buy up real estate in places like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, which were at one time out of our reach. We're buying them with cash, so no interest to pay, and we plan to hold on to them for about a decade or so, and then turn around and sell them for a huge profit. My family feels that this is the safest place to put cash in view of the hyper-inflation which is heading our way with the government spending out of control and the fed doing its quantitative easing over and over again.