Thread: Ron Paul 2012

Noam Chomsky in support of Ron Paul.

I also think what he's saying is "well, d'uh!"

But... I also agree with Chomsky here:

Noam Chomsky has said many times that American Libertarianism (or Rightwing Anarchism/Libertarian Capitalism) would essentially hand over power to the elite with out checks and balances or any social infrastructure, no questions asked. However, considering the corrupt way the government works as it is, it is a Corporatist/Fascist state and Libertarian Capitalism would at least end the monopolistic force that's disabling Libertarian Socialism.

If Rick Santorum wins Michigan (Five Thirty-Eight is predicting he will with 80% certainty, they have been pretty reliable to date aside from their prediction of Iowa, but wasn't everyone thrown by that?) then I think we may have a brokered convention... CNN, despite my disdain for their "news," has a very useful Delegate Predictor tool with a full map of all races where you can predict who will win each state.

If Romney takes the Northeast Seaboard states, Gingrich takes Georgia and maybe one other, and Rick takes Midwest states, it's a brokered convention, the 15% of voters that love Ron Paul will be the deciding factor... interesting. Very interesting.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

If Romney takes the Northeast Seaboard states, Gingrich takes Georgia and maybe one other, and Rick takes Midwest states, it's a brokered convention, the 15% of voters that love Ron Paul will be the deciding factor... interesting. Very interesting.

Haha, that's great if it happens. Similar thing happened here last election, where the two major parties got almost 50% each but the Greens got 1 seat and so they hold the balance of power.
Awesome.

Originally Posted by tommo

Haha, that's great if it happens. Similar thing happened here last election, where the two major parties got almost 50% each but the Greens got 1 seat and so they hold the balance of power.
Awesome.

It's really the only way for Ron Paul to make a HUGE difference, unless he endorsed Gary Johnson and gave him about 10% of the vote. That would be HUUUUUGE. Huge. And I would approve very much.

I don't like to swear and voice profanity but the schoolboy media has made me really fucking angry...

Yesterday saw almost five thousand people turn out in Illinois to see the Congressman, while his rivals can only draw crowds in and below the hundreds.

Paul’s supporters will once again be asking serious questions as to where his rivals are getting their votes from.

Of course, the event was not covered by ANY mainstream media sources. The last embedded reporter covering Ron Paul was reassigned this week.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, was covering a Newt Gingrich event not too far away in Rosemont, Illinois. Seventy, yes 70, people showed up.

Earlier in the week, Mitt Romney drew a handful of supporters to a small park in St. Louis.

And last weekend Rick Santorum's speech at a Kansas town hall meeting only 150 people showed up.

Who needs crowds when Faux News can tell you who you're supposed to vote for? The reason the others draw no crowds is because they are all "undecided" neocons who don't know if they want to vote for tweedle dee or tweedle dipshit.

The people who already KNOW who they are voting for, and therefore most active and enthusiastic, are the Paulites.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

I don't like to swear and voice profanity but the schoolboy media has made me really fucking angry...

Yesterday saw almost five thousand people turn out in Illinois to see the Congressman, while his rivals can only draw crowds in and below the hundreds.

Paul’s supporters will once again be asking serious questions as to where his rivals are getting their votes from.

Of course, the event was not covered by ANY mainstream media sources. The last embedded reporter covering Ron Paul was reassigned this week.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, was covering a Newt Gingrich event not too far away in Rosemont, Illinois. Seventy, yes 70, people showed up.

Earlier in the week, Mitt Romney drew a handful of supporters to a small park in St. Louis.

And last weekend Rick Santorum's speech at a Kansas town hall meeting only 150 people showed up.

Well what would you expect? The people who support Ron Paul actually support him, or about 80-90% of his policies. The people who "support" the republican or democrat candidates just don't want the other side to win.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Well what would you expect?

Well, I would have expected the above outcome and that is what has happened. That doesn't stop me from becoming very angry and I hope my post enlightens a few people to then go and do something to demand a transparent, mature and honourable media. Does that answer your question sufficiently?

I saw a guest lecturer today, he (as a member of the media) noted very importantly: "The only purpose of the media is to make money." They aren't liberally-biased or conservatively-biased, they are sensationalists who will tell whatever story they can to make money. They can't switch from ignoring Ron Paul to paying attention to him; all of their viewers will be bored and confused and upset that they are covering the guy who is "crazy."

That is partly true, however, some news sources cater to conservative viewers and some to liberal viewers.
And there are outlets like SBS which basically just report what's going on in the world, with no bias on the matter at all.
There would still be bias in the actual events they report, of course.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Well, I would have expected the above outcome and that is what has happened. That doesn't stop me from becoming very angry and I hope my post enlightens a few people to then go and do something to demand a transparent, mature and honourable media. Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You mean the internet? We're never going to get transparent media coverage of elections when the people who own the media companies have an agenda.


They are very concerned with making money, but they also wanna keep people distracted from the real issues.

Originally Posted by tommo

And there are outlets like SBS which basically just report what's going on in the world, with no bias on the matter at all.

I am definitely going to check that out. I didn't think such a thing existed. Journalism attracts extremely opinionated people, and it does the best business when it appeals to a political side. So, if there is a source that just reports the news, that is awesome.

If SBS really is unbiased and honest, it's funny that "BS" is in their name.

Let me know what your opinion on it is. I can't believe you haven't heard of it tbh.