So there's a topic over on Reddit about how the media is sticking Ron Paul on the sidelines even though he only narrowly lost to Michelle Bachmann in the Iowa Straw Polls (and both of them were leagues ahead of the third place candidate, Tim Pawlenty, who was so distraught by his utter defeat that he withdrew from the race the next day). You may have seen the bit on The Daily Show about it. Anyhow, somebody made a really good post about how the media can easily control the political discourse:
tl;dr: The media isn't "We report, you decide", it's more "We'll decide what cards go in the deck... now look at that! You get to pick any card you want straight out of the deck! Isn't democracy amazing?" It's a perfect way to manipulate the public opinion without catching any heat for it.
-- chumbucketeer fills cups like double-Ds. http://img.imgcake.com/chumpngej.png - Art by BIGPUN9999
Exactly! So many people love to claim how it's because "He isn't electable because he only gets x% of votes in the primaries" and don't realize the reason he gets such low percentages is because the media-viewing public doesn't get a good chance to see Ron Paul and understand his platform. Seriously, mad ****ing props to Stewart for finally blowing the cover off of that media bias.
Ron Paul should not be trusted as President. He might actually be useful as a Representative, but President Ron Paul is not good. He is crazy and racist and a theocrat and crazy.
muddersmilk posted... DaruniaTheGoron posted... The people at the Ames straw poll cared about him. Enough to make him almost win.
This is because Ron Paul has a small but dedicated fanbase that does things like coming in from all over the state to vote for Ron Paul. There's a reason that he does so much better in things like Straw Polls and online polls than actual voting, and it's because while the people who like him really, really like him, just as many people really, really don't like him, and everyone else doesn't care.
yoshifan823 posted... There are people who are pro-Paul. I'm heading them off at the pass. I think the reason that the media is ignoring him is because
A: He has no shot, even if he did get media attention.
The people in the Iowa straw poll seem to give him some chance. Hell, I've gotta believe that he'd do miles better than Bachmann on a presidential ticket.
B: The mainline GOP doesn't want him to win, because he's a libertarian with an R next to his name, not a "real" Republican
He's a fundamentalist republican. He believes in libertarian policies and restoring liberty to the American people, but his economical beliefs are that of a Republican's from when started his career. He also understands that the Republican base is his best shot for winning the Presidency.
C: He is weapons-grade Crazy with a capital C.
Because he wants to stop spending trillions of dollars on wars that we don't need to be in? Bring home troops stationed in places that aren't a real threat to the US? He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and do away with this paper money crap that isn't backed by anything and creates debt out of thin air? How about restoring liberty to us by abolishing this atrocious legislation known as The Patriot Act? Maybe because you think that he'll impose his personal beliefs on the nation with things like banning gay marriage or abortion just because he doesn't believe in those things himself...? He isn't trying to prohibit any of that, by the way, but never ducks out of the question when asked what his beliefs are. He may not agree with everything you do, but he's the guy who will fight to protect your freedom of choice in such matters.
Yeah, I support this crazy old coot, and I'll gladly be labeled 'crazy' right with him if it means I believe in my liberties. =\
muddersmilk posted... He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and do away with this paper money crap that isn't backed by anything and creates debt out of thin air?
He supports returning to the gold standard? nvm then
He supports 'sound money', which quite honestly sounds better than throwing ourselves into debt of the federal reserve for every dollar they print. As long as they exist, they're running the show. They are not a government branch, power or agency. They are a business who holds the country by the balls. Gold standard or no, we need SOMETHING different from what we have.
He supports 'sound money', which quite honestly sounds better than throwing ourselves into debt of the federal reserve for every dollar they print. As long as they exist, they're running the show. They are not a government branch, power or agency. They are a business who holds the country by the balls. Gold standard or no, we need SOMETHING different from what we have.
Sounds better? Yes. Better in practice? Not historically.
Do we need some changes? Yes. But going back to something like the gold standard will only create more problems.
-- (Maniac64 at work) [Browncoat] ~Board 570901~ All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.
Neither Ron Paul nor Michele Bachmann has a chance in hell of securing the GOP nomination, which just goes to show the utter unimportance of the Iowa Strawpoll (which, historically, has almost never selected the next president).
-- ~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Yeah, Reva, I'll give you a hint, Republicans don't want to go to the gold standard. Ron Paul does. That's not a "Republican" thing. And as for gay marriage and abortion, he simply wants to give that to the states, which is *not* the correct solution to that problem. That would be like giving the right to make miscegenation laws to the states: a terrible idea.
I'll admit, there are things that he says that are correct, like withdrawing from the wars that we're in, and that the Patriot Act is bad, but by and large, he's got some really terrible ideas.
And I'll say it again, there's no way Ron Paul would have a real shot at the nomination, even if Fox News and CNN were to turn into RPNN, because a majority of America would look at either the things he has done in the past (he is incredibly racist, which would really quickly turn on him), or the things he wants to do, and go "yeahhhhhhno."
BoshStrikesBack posted... Neither Ron Paul nor Michele Bachmann has a chance in hell of securing the GOP nomination, which just goes to show the utter unimportance of the Iowa Strawpoll (which, historically, has almost never selected the next president).
Yeah, Bachmann isn't making it either.
It's Romney v Perry at this point, and no matter who wins, we lose.
Yeah, Reva, I'll give you a hint, Republicans don't want to go to the gold standard. Ron Paul does. That's not a "Republican" thing. And as for gay marriage and abortion, he simply wants to give that to the states, which is *not* the correct solution to that problem. That would be like giving the right to make miscegenation laws to the states: a terrible idea.
Do you really think any state would outlaw interracial marriages?
Theon_Greyjoy posted... Yeah, Reva, I'll give you a hint, Republicans don't want to go to the gold standard. Ron Paul does. That's not a "Republican" thing. And as for gay marriage and abortion, he simply wants to give that to the states, which is *not* the correct solution to that problem. That would be like giving the right to make miscegenation laws to the states: a terrible idea.
Do you really think any state would outlaw interracial marriages?
btw guys, do you know of any booking sites that are taking bets on the 2012 election results? I want to bet on Romney winning the primary and possibly parlaying that with Obama winning the general.
-- Yoblazer: http://i43.tinypic.com/25z1non.jpg Watch and you'll see... someday I'll be... part of your world!
And as for gay marriage and abortion, he simply wants to give that to the states, which is *not* the correct solution to that problem.
You would prefer the federal government tell everyone what they can do with those issues? I mean at least with the states holding the rights there's a good chance *some* of them will share a view you can agree with on the matter(s). And I may be mistaken, but I think Ron Paul would leave the marriage issues up to the churches as well as the states, but I'm not entirely sure about that.
Fact is, Ron Paul is very constitution heavy, and most other candidates seem to be working away from the constitution or trying to change it around to fit their own personal/moral agendas. Ultimately though we do need the Patriot Act gone. As long as that exists, the armed forces no longer answer to/protect the constitution, but instead the President. No thank you to that at all.
btw guys, do you know of any booking sites that are taking bets on the 2012 election results? I want to bet on Romney winning the primary and possibly parlaying that with Obama winning the general.
Those probably wouldn't give you great betting odds. I imagine both of those are the most expected result.
-- (Maniac64 at work) [Browncoat] ~Board 570901~ All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.
btw guys, do you know of any booking sites that are taking bets on the 2012 election results? I want to bet on Romney winning the primary and possibly parlaying that with Obama winning the general.
I'll take that bet. Perry > Romney a lock
-- ~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Yes, I would prefer the federal government tell everyone what they can do with those issues. I mean, look at where we're at right now. We have about 20% of the states that allow gay marriage, and out of the other 80%, a very large majority doesn't even recognize the marriages from the states that allow gay marriage. This is an unequivocal bad thing.
The churches have no say in whether or not gay marriage is legal. They have every single say whether or not to allow it in their church, and if they don't allow it, that's their business, and I support them in their right to do that, but they don't have a say on whether people can do it outside their church.
Abortion is the same way. If we have some states that allow it, and some states that don't we're just gonna find an influx of people who travel to other states specifically to get abortions, or worse, just stay in state and do it less than legally. That's the issue here. People are going to get abortions, that's a fact of nature, if we allow it, we're at least allowing a way to do it safely, without harming the person getting it. Leaving something like that up to the states would end up hurting people in the end.
People are going to get abortions, that's a fact of nature, if we allow it, we're at least allowing a way to do it safely, without harming the person getting it. Leaving something like that up to the states would end up hurting people in the end.
But clearly leaving it in the government's hands isn't working out very well at all, at least on that issue. I agree with you, btw - if it's legal then it'll be regulated and safe and universal.
-- chumbucketeer fills cups like double-Ds. http://img.imgcake.com/chumpngej.png - Art by BIGPUN9999
Yeah, but you could write so much worse about Romney. He created Romneycare, he flip-flops more than a pair of thongs, he's mormon (maybe not an ad out of that, but it's something people will consider), he looks like he doesn't have a soul, the list goes on and on.
Everyone running for the GOP nomination is terrible, we're gonna get some great ads this season.
Yes, I would prefer the federal government tell everyone what they can do with those issuesif they get it right and obviously would just prefer that SOME states get it right rather than none if the fed decides against my personal beliefs.
CeraSeptem posted... Yes, I would prefer the federal government tell everyone what they can do with those issuesif they get it right and obviously would just prefer that SOME states get it right rather than none if the fed decides against my personal beliefs.
If they don't get it right, we have much bigger issues than the fact that gay marriage isn't legal. Namely that the Supreme Court isn't doing their ****ing jobs.
Perry splits the Christian conservative/Tea Party enthusiast vote with Bachmann. With Pawlenty gone, Romney is really the last moderate centrist remaining (I doubt Huntsman will register anything more than a blip). He has tons of money, he's had the experience of doing this once before, and so far, every candidate has been completely ineffective at going after him. We'll see if Perry can take the gloves off.
I checked one site yesterday where Perry was actually the favorite over Romney, but I'd like to see others.
-- Yoblazer: http://i44.tinypic.com/5nw45i.jpg Watch and you'll see... someday I'll be... part of your world!
Abortion is the same way. If we have some states that allow it, and some states that don't we're just gonna find an influx of people who travel to other states specifically to get abortions, or worse, just stay in state and do it less than legally. That's the issue here. People are going to get abortions, that's a fact of nature, if we allow it, we're at least allowing a way to do it safely, without harming the person getting it. Leaving something like that up to the states would end up hurting people in the end.
Then I'd say it's up to those people whether or not they want to risk that. Granting it everywhere will result in more Westborough Baptist Church-like protests and acts, and banning it everywhere will remove that much more liberty from people and cause an even more unsafe procedure to those who choose to do it anyway. Leave it to the states at least and people will have somewhere they can go and have it done.
The rest of that post I didn't respond to on a flat disagreement of value, and the church part I do agree with for the most part. That's a political argument though, I suppose.
If they don't get it right, we have much bigger issues than the fact that gay marriage isn't legal. Namely that the Supreme Court isn't doing their ****ing jobs.
So the Supreme Court's job is to conform to your personal beliefs. Okay then.
PrinceReva posted... Abortion is the same way. If we have some states that allow it, and some states that don't we're just gonna find an influx of people who travel to other states specifically to get abortions, or worse, just stay in state and do it less than legally. That's the issue here. People are going to get abortions, that's a fact of nature, if we allow it, we're at least allowing a way to do it safely, without harming the person getting it. Leaving something like that up to the states would end up hurting people in the end.
Then I'd say it's up to those people whether or not they want to risk that. Granting it everywhere will result in more Westborough Baptist Church-like protests and acts, and banning it everywhere will remove that much more liberty from people and cause an even more unsafe procedure to those who choose to do it anyway. Leave it to the states at least and people will have somewhere they can go and have it done.
The rest of that post I didn't respond to on a flat disagreement of value, and the church part I do agree with for the most part. That's a political argument though, I suppose.
It's already granted everywhere, though. We can't grant it *more*, because it's a binary thing. Abortions are legal, or they're not. It's ironic that you support the "liberty" of the people, because by allowing the states to decide, you may end up removing a right that people already have, simply by letting people (or worse, legislators) vote on the issue. People shouldn't vote on this, because while it is somewhat a moral issue, it's much more of a safety issue, and allowing the people to vote on safety issues sets a dangerous precedent.
Theon_Greyjoy posted... If they don't get it right, we have much bigger issues than the fact that gay marriage isn't legal. Namely that the Supreme Court isn't doing their ****ing jobs.
So the Supreme Court's job is to conform to your personal beliefs. Okay then.
Haha, cute. No, the Supreme Court's job is to protect the rights of the people of the United States, occasionally *from* the people of the United States. The will of the majority should not interfere with the rights of the minority, and all that.
I would like to say, getting back on the point of the OP, the mainstream media is pretty terrible, and I'm not just talking about Fox News. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, all are pretty terrible.
hurr if gay marriage was legal churches would be forced to marry same-sex couple and that's a violation of the freedom of religion hurf durf look at me i'm so stupid that i actually believe this oh wow how do i manage to wipe my own ass i'm so dumb time to take my ignorance to polls and vote on things i so obviously don't understand
It's ironic that you support the "liberty" of the people, because by allowing the states to decide, you may end up removing a right that people already have, simply by letting people (or worse, legislators) vote on the issue. People shouldn't vote on this, because while it is somewhat a moral issue, it's much more of a safety issue, and allowing the people to vote on safety issues sets a dangerous precedent.
So, instead of leaving the issue up to 50 states to decide individually, it should be all-or-nothing at the federal level? And that's okay because for the moment it's legal nationwide? I mean, with the GOP on the prowl it could just as easily be outlawed, and then what would you be saying? Depending on your stance it could be "Yes, the federal government has solved this injustice!" or "****! The federal government just trampled on another personal choice and liberty of the people!"
I'd sooner take the 50 states to decide and take the hike to the next state over if it came down to it.