US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[NoLongerSane]

Originally Posted by Rennir

It seems Perry has a record for this foot in the mouth stuff. Good luck explaining his statement about seceding from the Union away in a presidential debate.

Lol, well I am not surprised. My home state tends to have it's politicians put their foots in their mouths. The most famous that I could recall was during the Ann Richards/ Clayton Williams governers race where Williams made a quip about bad weather and rape. Pretty much the man said that if it's inevitable, just to relax and enjoy it.

[Frenchie]

It feels like Republicans believe this election will be a referendum on Obama, and considering the GOP Field, it feels like they're not even trying. I don't think I recall seeing an American president elected on blame alone, so they better clean up their act and soon.

[Reckoner]

Well has a President in bad economic times ever been relected save perhaps FDR?

Obama has his work cut out for him if he wants to stay in office.

[Ithekro]

Only of someone credible is running against him. If no one believes in the opponent, they will vote for the crook they know...which would be Obama. The only way that gets overlooked is if Obama's ratings get to the point where it is "Anyone but Obama"...and that will take a bit of doing to get the borderline Democrats and independant voters (that vote based on who is popular sometimes) to vote for someone that isn't Obama.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Just looked up the recent arguments about Ron Paul...

Amazing. The entire new media, both sides, calling Paul "unelectable".

I am starting to understand now. The discussion I had previously about electability vs desirability seemed to went nowhere. But it is now clear it is because the American media drummed into everyone's heads that "if someone is unelectable, you shouldn't vote for him. And if no one vote for him, he is unelectable."

And then conveniently, the media decides who is and isn't electable, and just exile the candidates they don't like. While candidates who clearly have no chance in hell of winning, but is liked, ended up with huge air time.

I am not a supporter of Ron Paul politically, but the way he is being mistreated is clearly a grave injustice and shameful. He is a human being, and should be treated like one.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Flinch

Do we REALLY need another politician leading the country? Why don't we just put a philosopher king in power?

Lol, all the way back to Platonian philosophy? Now that's old school...

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Just looked up the recent arguments about Ron Paul...

Amazing. The entire new media, both sides, calling Paul "unelectable".

I am starting to understand now. The discussion I had previously about electability vs desirability seemed to went nowhere. But it is now clear it is because the American media drummed into everyone's heads that "if someone is unelectable, you shouldn't vote for him. And if no one vote for him, he is unelectable."

And then conveniently, the media decides who is and isn't electable, and just exile the candidates they don't like. While candidates who clearly have no chance in hell of winning, but is liked, ended up with huge air time.

I am not a supporter of Ron Paul politically, but the way he is being mistreated is clearly a grave injustice and shameful. He is a human being, and should be treated like one.

Ron Paul is a Human but not a corporation, so he is not a real person.

[Yuno]

In the Straw Poll Ron Paul came second place... I just don't get how they come to those conclusions. They also seem reluctant to mention anything on him in the news too. Not to mention in the debate many people cheered and applauded the things he had to say. It must be really annoying for him. It's almost like a form of.. I don't know what.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Just looked up the recent arguments about Ron Paul...

Amazing. The entire new media, both sides, calling Paul "unelectable".

I am starting to understand now. The discussion I had previously about electability vs desirability seemed to went nowhere. But it is now clear it is because the American media drummed into everyone's heads that "if someone is unelectable, you shouldn't vote for him. And if no one vote for him, he is unelectable."

And then conveniently, the media decides who is and isn't electable, and just exile the candidates they don't like. While candidates who clearly have no chance in hell of winning, but is liked, ended up with huge air time.

I am not a supporter of Ron Paul politically, but the way he is being mistreated is clearly a grave injustice and shameful. He is a human being, and should be treated like one.

The same thing has been done to almost any candidate that makes the corporations (and therefore the corporate media) nervous in both Democrat and Republican primaries over the last 20 years or so. Kucinich is an example of the same treatment on the Dem side, "Oh isn't he cute supporting the little guy but totally unelectable" right out of the starting gate.

Basically through misinformation, disinformation, and omission - the game is rigged. Watch how Romney, Bachmann, and Perry are being "reinvisioned" by the media as they ignore what comes out of their mouths (fact-checking) in favor of "how well they presented themselves, etc".

[ChainLegacy]

Kind of makes one wonder if the current system is beyond the point of rehabilitation... The grip is so strong by the corporate puppetmasters, I can't think of any realistic scenario where they're overthrown other than violent revolution or some kind of worldwide tumultuous period for governments.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Just looked up the recent arguments about Ron Paul...

Amazing. The entire new media, both sides, calling Paul "unelectable".

I am starting to understand now. The discussion I had previously about electability vs desirability seemed to went nowhere. But it is now clear it is because the American media drummed into everyone's heads that "if someone is unelectable, you shouldn't vote for him. And if no one vote for him, he is unelectable."

And then conveniently, the media decides who is and isn't electable, and just exile the candidates they don't like. While candidates who clearly have no chance in hell of winning, but is liked, ended up with huge air time.

I am not a supporter of Ron Paul politically, but the way he is being mistreated is clearly a grave injustice and shameful. He is a human being, and should be treated like one.

Things this guy is saying makes every self-interest around the country very very nervous. If he is nominated and eventually becomes the next president, I think he will be up for assassination. And I'm partly joking. Btw, as Jon Stewart has pointed out, a media black out is already in session to cover Ron Paul which includes MSNBC, FOX, CNN and almost all other major network.

clickity click

I also think when these major media network get around to cover him, they will be portraying him under the intense light of full fledge negativity and malice. After all, this is one person who can hurt the left and the right just by speaking out.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The same thing has been done to almost any candidate that makes the corporations (and therefore the corporate media) nervous in both Democrat and Republican primaries over the last 20 years or so. Kucinich is an example of the same treatment on the Dem side, "Oh isn't he cute supporting the little guy but totally unelectable" right out of the starting gate.

Personally, I've always felt that Kucinich got a bad wrap in the party because everyone is secretly jealous of his hot wife ...

[NoLongerSane]

Originally Posted by monir

Things this guy is saying makes every self-interest around the country very very nervous. If he is nominated and eventually becomes the next president, I think he will be up for assassination. And I'm partly joking. Btw, as Ron Stewart has pointed out, a media black out is already in session to cover Ron Paul which includes MSNBC, FOX, CNN and almost all other major network.

clickity click

I also think when these major media network get around to cover him, they will be portraying him under the intense light of full fledge negativity and malice. After all, this is one person who can hurt the left and the right just by speaking out.

I just recently saw this today. I am not into politics so can someone explain to me what political sin did Ron Paul commit to be treated this way.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by NoLongerSane

I just recently saw this today. I am not into politics so can someone explain to me what political sin did Ron Paul commit to be treated this way.

he spoke the truth

[Flinch]

Originally Posted by Haak

Lol, all the way back to Platonian philosophy? Now that's old school...

If something works, why change it?

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

he spoke the truth

And the truth shall set you free.

[monir]

Originally Posted by NoLongerSane

I just recently saw this today. I am not into politics so can someone explain to me what political sin did Ron Paul commit to be treated this way.

The following is an excerpt from an user called elr456 from Yahoo who writes down an account of Ron Paul's voting record and his personal stance since he is been in Congress starting from 1976:

Ron never voted for raising taxes.
Ron never voted for the Patriot Act
Ron never voted to raise the debt ceiling
Ron never voted to go to war in Iraq and all the other places
Ron never voted to use your tax dollars to bail out the banks
Ron has introduced term limit legislation but has been denied by the rest of Congress
Ron does not participate in the congressional pension plan.
Ron returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the Treasury every year
Ron never voted for an unbalanced budget
Ron never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA
Ron has always wanted to reduce our massive spending by stopping these useless wars.
Ron will get rid of foreign aid
Ron will help audit then gradually abolish the Federal Reserve so we can return to a sound currency
Ron will enforce immigration law and close the border with Mexico
Ron is against the useless war on drugs that jails non violent criminals while the justice system allows murderers, rapists, and child molesters to get out early
Ron is against the income tax
Ron will get rid of the IRS
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket
Ron will reduce regulation so companies come back to the United States and create more jobs
Ron once offered $100 of his own money and told the rest of Congress to do the same to pay for the Congressional Medal of Honor given to Rosa Parks. No one joined him despite Congressmen earning a base salary of 174K a year.

I don't know how accurate the above is but as you can see, the both side of the party (Dems and Repubs) will suffer major inconvenience if Ron Paul gets his way even if some of the things come into effect as a manner of policy change. There will be a bounty on his head in no time where both party (Dems and Repubs) will contribute to the reward money. When he was running for nomination in 2008, Fox News relentlessly portrayed Ron Paul as the next worse thing to racism since the KKK. Mind you, Ron Paul was one of the Republican candidate. When there is any media attention on him, it's usually the negative kind mostly from Fox News, or in the form of comedy where a guy like Jon Stewart is pointing out how there is little coverage on him.. meaning the media Black Out like in this instance.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by NoLongerSane

I just recently saw this today. I am not into politics so can someone explain to me what political sin did Ron Paul commit to be treated this way.

Vexx already mentioned the problem. Ron Paul is not in line with his party’s rhetoric, nor does he "serve" the same corporate interests (we should all remember that the Republican Party is happy to call themselves "dittoheads"). So, the various news organizations and party members treat him as an invisible man of sorts (if you'll permit the expression).

This isn't all bad really. If he can sway a significant amount of voters that he is an electable candidate, then he could easily win the nomination. Sadly, more than anything else, Paul lacks charisma, so I doubt he will be able to sway enough to him.

edit: beaten by Monir. (I wish there was a vexed emoticon.)

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

he spoke the truth

It's not even that. He's the Bernie Sanders of the Republican Party, someone who is out of phase with the rest of them, and in many cases a throwback to the old days when being a Republican meant actually having consistent core policies that didn't include coddling the elites.

I don't like many of the things he stands for, personally, but he's a respectable guy (much more than his son) and what I do like about him is based heavily on the fact that he presents his opinions using things like logic, fact, and real world reasoning....all of things you don't see much of on Capital Hill anymore.

This isn't about the news networks manipulating the public into picking certain candidates - at least not directly. This is about media trying to further buddy up with politicians so they can have more access. Most media outlets forgot what the words "investigative journalism" meant sometime around the time Reagan hit office. The final gasp of that practice was the Savings and Loans whistle blowing.....now standing against the establishment is just begging to be fired and discredited.

[monir]

Originally Posted by james0246

This isn't all bad really. If he can sway a significant amount of voters that he is an electable candidate, then he could easily win the nomination. Sadly, more than anything else, Paul lacks charisma, so I doubt he will be able to sway enough to him.

Lack of charisma hasn't been a problem. The best example is the two time winner who goes by the name of G-DoubleYa. How many of us truly thought he was going to win the second term? GOP didn't have a charismatic character since Ronald Reagan, but they have been doing just fine. No, what Ron Paul lacks is backing from powerful interest group. And yet I still think this election offers Ron Paul the best opportunity to go that extra mile unlike any other time he ran thanks to the age of social media.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

The interesting thing about Ron Paul, is that even though I disagree with his goals, I agree with his methods.

As an example, I consider the mainstream GOP anti-tax stance ridiculous. Especially since they claim they want to balance the budget.

Ron Paul is also anti-tax. The difference, is that unlike the rest of the GOP, Paul realised the only way this can work is by massive, bleeding cuts to every sector of the government. Including the military. In short, he actually follow his ideology through with the attempt to make it real.

So even though I believe his goal might cause widespread pain and suffering for the poor, at the very least I can see that it works. He would be able to balance the books.
And that's a whole lot more realistic than his current GOP competitors who have no intention of doing anything they promised.