The contempt for Dr. Ron Paul by the media

[Guest mikedwood]

Dr. Paul is pretty much a Jeffersonian in political and economic philosophy. The Jeffersonians went out of power under John Adams and have only had short flashes of return to power ( Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland ) and lost all power and influence at the Democratic Convention in 1896, when the Democratic Party also adopted the Hamiltonian “Strong Central Bank and strong Central Government” platform (witness the current Democratic President’s Central Government actions). I also tend to be Jeffersonian, although I am a Centrist Conservative. The problem for Dr. Paul is that he is “El Lobo” (a lone wolf ) and will never be accepted or supported by the mainstream Hamiltonian parties. If he did get elected he could accomplish nothing with the Congress, which would fight him all the way (as directed by their Corporate masters), and this includes both parties. After almost two centuries of Hamiltonian control by the wealthy elite we just have to recognize that we ( the common people) do not control or even really influence our Federal government. It is also unlikely that we ever will.

I really respect Dr, Paul for his courage and spirit but I am very afraid that he is jousting at windmills. There were two groups at the writing of the Constitution and the one representing the Elite Classes won. The Constitution was written and has been interpreted to give us the exact Federal Government we have. The "Strong Central Government" side won and thereby won the control by the Elite. “The People” in the Declaration of Independence” were “Free-holders, which were White, Land-owning (wealthy), Protestant men (no women!) These are ”The People” that the Constitution has come to protect. Almost all of the Bill of Rights has been made powerless by the infamous clauses of the Preamble and Section One of the main body of the Constitution ( placed there under the Hamilton faction’s pressure). Dr. Paul cannot change that. God Bless him for trying though.

Those that don't follow what I am saying need to take some time and read the real story behind the forming of our government. Do your own research or go to the site in my signature. All of the documents, explaining both sides' agenda, by the founding fathers in their own words are there. They are without any outside political comments and you can make your own decisions after reading them.

Maybe he couldn't accomplish anything at all. But can you imagine the trillions a 4 or 8 years stalemate would save us? Pretty much shutting down new laws coming through.

In recent years it is starting to really scare me that the federal, state and local politicians think that it is their job and duty to enact new laws, upon new laws. In 20 years seriously NOTHING AT ALL WILL BE LEGAL. I could seriously go for a temporary to permanent freeze.

Edited November 25, 2011 by mikedwood

[Guest mikedwood]

Posting under my own post,but what the heck. OhShoot and I are having a discussion in the Gingrich thread, I'm carrying it over to her to keep it more about Dr. Paul and is starting to fit here more.

Well, Paul won't drop out until after a few primaries anyway, or until money runs out, which it will after a few primaries if he doesn't win or come in second.

My point is - in a close general election (think back to Bush/Gore) one state can swing it. Paul running as Libertarian could drain off enough the GOP vote in just one state and swing whole election to O. This ain't Bob Barr, y'know. But think Ross Perot, many analyses agree that he elected Slick Willy the first time around.

No, there's no way to figure the odds, and race may be a Red runaway in which case it won't matter. But it might be really really tight, too. Especially since the GOP is gonna throw a nominee out there that doesn't appeal to over over 50% of even traditional Republican voters. Call it religious racism if you like, but there are a pile of Protestants (especially fundamentalists) in this country who ain't gonna vote for a Morman or a twice divorced converted Catholic. Question is whether they'll vote for a black man the second time around, whether they did the first time or not.

Remember that at least a third of the voters in this country don't vote on basis of issues/policy, only personal like/dislike. That's why we shouldn't even be voting for the American Idol president. At least another third only votes for "what's in it for me", and that doesn't include freedom or individual responsibility either, which means the perceived gimmie gimmie Democrat.

- OS

You are right there is no way to figure the odds, but I think that Dr. Paul would draw more from Obama's possibilities than Newt's or Mitt's, even though the agendas are pretty much the same on the larger scale.

Wednesday night my wife had one of her friends and her friends boyfriend over to have dinner with us. He's in college. Nice kid, he is learning somethings and I know he knows the world isn't what he thought it was a couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure he voted or would have voted for Obama in 08.

So me and him go to get pizza and the women stay at home. I bring up the "Who you gonna vote for?" He says "I dunno really, who do you like". I told him I was pretty crazy about Dr. Paul. He give me a real odd look and admitted that Dr. Paul was his choice also but.... "Dr. Paul can't win". So I asked "Why not what's wrong with freedom and liberty?" he said "Nothing, it's great why are people against it?". To that I couldn't answer. I have the same question. He said there are Ron Paul stickers and posters all over campus. I read an article today that freedom is the new communism on many campus' today.

My mom said she liked Huntsman. I asked her what about Dr. Paul? She said "He can't win" I said why not. Her answer was cause the news says he can't. I said mom you are not that easily led are you? She said not usually. I asked if she would vote for Dr. Paul if he could win? She would!

I think more than dragging votes away from the GOP nomination in a 3 party race Dr. Paul would draw from the middle and even some of the liberals that want the wars over. Obama has shown that is nothing he is interested in, Obama has also shown that pulling in the TSA and the Patriot Act is nothing he is interested in. No matter what he said in his campaign.

Obama has shown that inspite of what he said in his campaign that he loves lobbiests and he loves Wall Street and the big banks.

I listen to a lot of talk radio Rush, Beck, Hannity is usually on when I'm home so I don't catch that, and even on this board. the GOP faithful want to continue the wars and more wars if they can get them. Obama and Hillary are foaming at the mouth to take on Syria and Iran as well.

So in a three way race the only "Let's not do war" candidate is Ron Paul. The only "Let's not let TSA go this far and let's not do the Patriot Act anymore" is once again Ron Paul. That message isn't going to fly well with the GOP at this point in time cause every other candidate wants more war, more security measures (not matter if they work or not) and more more and more war.

Dr. Paul isn't going to draw from that. The GOP has been trying to get rid of him for years, but he keeps getting elected and won't leave them. The GOP doesn't want Dr. Paul.

I think Perot pulled from the GOP cause he's rich and people in the GOP seem to think that electing a rich guy will make them rich. Plus Perot strong on the military.

I can't remember a candidate at all, ever, that has said liberty and freedom are important and mean it like Dr. Paul. It's uncharted waters for sure. Reagan maybe but he didn't mean it like Dr. Paul.

Also I can't remember a serious candidate ever that wasn't in bed with the mega corps and money changers ( remember what Jesus thought of them? )

I watch news all the freaking time. I'll admit I'm obsessed, I know the average American is obsessed with Football, Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, Video gaming. Whatever distraction is available so I don't think many people have heard Dr. Paul's message yet. Only that he is a loon that can't get elected and that's the bullet point they have filed away. If it gets where they can hear him much. I think the message will resonate with the sane.

As for me I'm a sucker for liberty and freedom. Gets me every time.

I think a lot of the GOP with hold their nose and vote for whoever, I have seen "Satan himself" even on this board to keep Obama out. The main difference between Obama, Mitt and Newt is the delivery of the same message and the color of their skin. The top part of their belief system for America is all the same.

Obama didn't dismantle this country in a few years by himself. Yeah he turned it up to light speed but, it's been a systematic dismantling that has been going on for several decades.

[smopoim86]

Ron Paul is the only true conservative that's currently running. The media and elites are afraid of him. The rest of the candidates are all reading from the same agenda. Notice in the debates that Ron Paul is the only one that doesn't think it's a good idea to take all our liberties away in the name of "security". He's definitely got my vote (again).

[Oh Shoot]

Ron Paul is the only true conservative that's currently running. The media and elites are afraid of him. The rest of the candidates are all reading from the same agenda. Notice in the debates that Ron Paul is the only one that doesn't think it's a good idea to take all our liberties away in the name of "security". He's definitely got my vote (again).

Will he still be on the ballot here if he withdraws before our primary?

Gonna just vote for him or write him in anyway if he does?

- OS

[Guest lostpass]

People get the media wrong so often it is comical. It is easy to see the media as a driving force in public thought but the reality is far different (and much sadder). The media doesn't drive decisions, the media gives you what you want.

It is a lot like McDonalds. You will say that McDonalds has bad food. You'll be right. But McDonalds isn't there to give you good food at reasonable prices, McDonalds is there to give you cheap food quickly that is marginally satisfying. It is the same thing with the media. You imagine the media is this great thing, this fourth branch of government, that sways public opinion and such. The truth is that the media is chasing after viewers, listeners and clicks as furiously as McDonalds tries to sway folks to the drive through. The media isn't driving the coverage they are pandering to the viewer ship. Don't believe me? Great, how many times have you heard someone say "I stopped watching/reading/listening when X happened" What business is about losing customers? Right now Ron Paul is not of interest to many people. Go check his chances on intrade.

Is it hopeless for Dr. Paul? Not even close. In 2008 Obama had no chance of beating Hillary. Well, it was worse than that, he had no chance of beating Biden. He had, basically no chance. Until he won the Iowa primary. Hate on Obama all you want, that guy knows how to campaign. But I suspect Ron Paul, if he plays his cards right, can pull off the same trick. Ron Paul can win Iowa and then the national conversation will change. The conversation will change faster than it did when Obama won Iowa.

I am skeptical Ron Paul can beat Obama. I am skeptical that any republican can beat Obama. But a race of Obama versus Paul might move the country back to the individual rights side of the board instead of the "protect you" mode I find so completely personally offensive.

[Guest BungieCord]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is an anachronism from the Middle Ages. Isolationism has been obsolete since the first bespoke aircraft carrier was launched.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is an anachronism from the Middle Ages. Isolationism has been obsolete since the first bespoke aircraft carrier was launched.

Then again, the aircraft carrier has been obsolete since the first nuclear weapon was tested. At least obsolete against nations in the nuclear club.