All candidates are bashed and marginalized by one media outlet or another. That is what happens when you put your ideas and your record out for scrutiny. Paul supporters need thicker skin. He can put his message out to whomever he likes, but if he hangs out with nuts I'm gonna assume he is a nut. Again he has not been marginalized by the media. Nothing is kooky about abolishing the thread in and of itself. Paul just doesn't have a plan to do it. He has a sound byte. It was there. I promise. He has no trouble getting his message out. I and everyone I know knows who he is and what he's about. I like alot of the libertarian ideals he preaches. I do not like the company he keeps or his congressional record which to me is contrary to his lib ideals. What I note is how thin the skin of the man's supporter's is. A friend told me the other day Ron Paul does not have supporters he has apologists.
Right. Sound analysis. You obviously feel better under leadership with a plan to go in the wrong direction. So was I. I noticed the absence of Paul's name multiple times. I'm not the only one. Fox also omitted Paul's name from an AP article and posted it as if it was the original article. There are a lot of people who have never heard of him and know nothing about his platform. You are more educated than most. I don't understand what you're saying.
This is what I don't understand about Ron Paul supporters. I can accept the fact that people don't like McCain, Guiliani, Romney, etc. and even Hillary and Obama, for that matter. But for some reason, if you don't join the Ron Paul bandwagon, you are a horrible person and want this country to go in a negative direction. And heaven forbid you say anything bad about Ron Paul. How is it already a given (according to RP supporters at least) that he is the answer to all of our country's problems?
I never called anyone a horrible person. As far as the direction of the country, it seems most candidates are headed in the wrong direction and don't really want to admit that our economic situation is bad - their proposed policy definitely doesn't address our economic situation and very few of them get into detail about it. An interventionist foreign policy costs a lot of money. The nanny state costs a lot of money. Some democrats want to fix the foreign policy but will let pump more money into the nanny state. Some republicans have at least decent domestic policy, but it seems they all want to continue spending buckets of cash abroad. Our economy is in pretty bad shape and it seems that only one candidate realizes it, or at least only one candidate thoroughly understands it. We are headed in the wrong direction with everyone else. Yes, I will call out those who dismiss Paul for superficial reasons. I think Paul is a truly great person and it is frustrating others don't see it. I guess I don't do a good enough job conveying the reasons he is right for our country - it all goes back to economic policy. Anyway, dude is a truly good person who understands the situation of our country more thoroughly than any other candidate. I may have been wrong about Fox skipping Paul's name - I think they were showing delegates for each candidate. I was under the impression that Paul won 2 delegates in Iowa. I still think Fox has really trashed Paul and not given him a fair shake, and it has been proven that his name was omitted from an AP article posted on Fox's website. Regardless, I am very upset with the way Fox operates and I think they do a disservice to the nation. I think they need to answer for it.
I think you all are reading too much into this. Fox probably just wanted to include those candidates that have a snowball's chance in Hades at winning the election.
Did anyone see Ron Paul just get called out big time in the debate? Wow, that was almost uncomfortable to watch.
At what point? I'm assuming you're talking about the part where he didn't hear the moderator's comment about the rest of the candidates supporting the captain of the warship. The sad thing is, so many are so entrenched that Ron Paul's point went directly over their heads. Sure, they were saying they supported the captain's decision to not engage the Iranian boats, but they followed it up (particularly Ghouliani, who will be another Bush in foreign policy) by saying this proves Iran is a threat and that we should put sanctions on them. It is hard to make a complete statement without hearing the intelligence on this situation, but I do know that Ron Paul opposes preemption, which goes back to his belief in the Christian theory of Just War. I actually thought Paul did pretty well to very well. Maybe too many are too entrenched and need another President who will continue to break the bank. But Paul will be funded until he decides to drop out. Too many support his views. 30,000+ in two states isn't an insignificant number. As other candidates drop out, Ron Paul will still be in the race.
Man, that was painful to watch him stutter his way through the debate. I know people are desperate for politicians with new/different ideas, but this guy is just way out there. That was the most face time he got in any of the debates I've seen. I can't imagine he won over many new voters. He might want to ask Fox not to invite him to future debates.:hihi:
