| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On November 14 2011 11:51 xDaunt wrote: I thought his answer on that question was perfect. His start was rocky with the way the moderator was acting, but his clarification was as good as it could have been | ||
|
Whitept
United States60 Posts
| ||
|
Holytornados
United States1022 Posts
| ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On November 14 2011 13:12 Whitept wrote: Ron Paul is a moron completely mentally separated from reality, which is why I cannot support him as a reasonable candidate. Please elaborate? I personally thin k he's the only one up there with even the slightest clue what an average persons reality looks like. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11398 Posts
On November 14 2011 11:41 NtroP wrote: They only gave him 89 seconds, because every debate he's allowed to speak in, he wins. I don't know if he would win necessarily. But the more I see, the more I am certain that an inordinate amount of influence has been given to the media (undemocratically elected organization) to act as kingmakers. Oh sure, the candidates can mess things up like Cain and Perry's race to the bottom. But the fact that candidates are assumed to be top tier, means the media gives them way more speaking time, which means everyone perceives them as top tier because they talk more, which means they get more air time. And around and around it goes. I mean I get that there are top tier and fringe candidates, but does the media get to pick them so early? It should really only be about now that time is starting to be limited to fringe candidates and certainly not down to 90 seconds. Again I would not want to see Ron Paul as President as I think he would be disastrous on the home front (although his understanding of foreign affairs and the cost of overseas bases I do like.) But 90 seconds is ridiculous, if not a deliberate shut out. Edit. I can't believe Cain is talking about regime change in Iran. Isn't that why Iran is still a little ticked at US from before? Regime change, of a democratically elected government. And then talk about wanting to support opposition in Iran and yet be mad at Obama's tentative support of Libya and Egypt's opposition. I hope they aren't nearly as hawkish as their rhetoric would suggest or the US will be in a couple more Middle East country in a couple years. | ||
|
unit
United States2621 Posts
On November 14 2011 13:49 Falling wrote: I don't know if he would win necessarily. But the more I see, the more I am certain that an inordinate amount of influence has been given to the media (undemocratically elected organization) to act as kingmakers. Oh sure, the candidates can mess things up like Cain and Perry's race to the bottom. But the fact that candidates are assumed to be top tier, means the media gives them way more speaking time, which means everyone perceives them as top tier because they talk more, which means they get more air time. And around and around it goes. I mean I get that there are top tier and fringe candidates, but does the media get to pick them so early? It should really only be about now that time is starting to be limited to fringe candidates and certainly not down to 90 seconds. Again I would not want to see Ron Paul as President as I think he would be disastrous on the home front (although his understanding of foreign affairs and the cost of overseas bases I do like.) But 90 seconds is ridiculous, if not a deliberate shut out. keep in mind that the media has been getting away with this since the summer, i believe it started in july/august...at least i noticed it then...its just ridiculous, and if anything it shows corruption more than anything else considering that the media is funded by the very people who profit from fiat money and war, which is exactly what ron paul is against, ron paul is the candidate that is willing and able to help out the average person over the corporations which is exactly why they want him out of the race which is more a more effective way to remove someone from a race? 1) bash them repeatedly on the smallest things, blowing them way out of proportion while hiding the redeeming characteristics (generally done with everyone though so at least it blends in) or 2) act as though the candidate doesnt exist, thus creating the illusion that the candidate isnt even in the race as well as keeping the average person uninformed of the candidate's viewpoints the second option is the correct one keep in mind the easiest ways to control the masses (let me know if i miss any important ones) 1)misinformation - trick them into believing that your agenda helps them, whether it does or does not this is basically what the media has been doing for a long time now, i dont even know when that started (propaganda counts) 2)create an enemy - people are much more likely to buy into your viewpoints if they are afraid of something and you offer them protection just how many wars are we even in? seriously i lost track of the amount of countries that we have committed acts of war against | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 14 2011 13:49 Falling wrote: I don't know if he would win necessarily. But the more I see, the more I am certain that an inordinate amount of influence has been given to the media (undemocratically elected organization) to act as kingmakers. Oh sure, the candidates can mess things up like Cain and Perry's race to the bottom. But the fact that candidates are assumed to be top tier, means the media gives them way more speaking time, which means everyone perceives them as top tier because they talk more, which means they get more air time. And around and around it goes. I mean I get that there are top tier and fringe candidates, but does the media get to pick them so early? It should really only be about now that time is starting to be limited to fringe candidates and certainly not down to 90 seconds. Again I would not want to see Ron Paul as President as I think he would be disastrous on the home front (although his understanding of foreign affairs and the cost of overseas bases I do like.) But 90 seconds is ridiculous, if not a deliberate shut out. Perry was hyped and his campaign created by the media at least a month before he even declared that he was running. He was almost totally a product of the media. Cain has been built up by the media to a lesser extent, but nonetheless they generated his buzz before his campaign really took off. Then when these candidates became the front runner, the media started attacking them and suggesting that other candidates may be actually be a better choice/gaining popularity/etc. This is exactly the sort of thing that gets people glued to the TV or reading articles, so I guess it makes sense. But you're right, it's disturbing the amount of influence they have. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11398 Posts
And it's not even so much about which candidate makes better use of the media, which I don't particularly have a problem with- FDR's radio addresses, Kennedy's on air charisma on televised debates, or Obama's use of social media. (Or going way back when politicians just ran their own newspapers, which was quite blatantly political one way or the other.) But that the media itself as an organization gets this tremendous influence one the election process. I don't particularly care if it's the people that decide or if it's elected officials that decide (like our Canadian system, it's voted internally by the party's elected members of parliament). But at some point, I'd hope the process is somewhat democratic and not just the case of several undemocratic organizations shutting a candidate out.) | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On November 14 2011 13:12 Whitept wrote: Ron Paul is a moron completely mentally separated from reality, which is why I cannot support him as a reasonable candidate. I think you mean: "Ron Paul is a candidate seperate from the garbage policies that have run us into the ground and are going to continue to do so." | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 14 2011 14:21 Falling wrote: Oh I realize they've been doing this for awhile, this is just one of the most blatant examples of it. Last election cycle I just assumed that the American system had a good way of picking out top tier and fringe candidates. But this election cycle, it just seems exceedingly obvious that mass media has become gate keepers in the election process itself (obviously they've always been the gatekeepers of news, but that's a little different.) I had a sneaking suspicion, but every debate has convinced me more and more. And it's not even so much about which candidate makes better use of the media, which I don't particularly have a problem with- FDR's radio addresses, Kennedy's on air charisma on televised debates, or Obama's use of social media. (Or going way back when politicians just ran their own newspapers, which was quite blatantly political one way or the other.) But that the media itself as an organization gets this tremendous influence one the election process. I don't particularly care if it's the people that decide or if it's elected officials that decide (like our Canadian system, it's voted internally by the party's elected members of parliament). But at some point, I'd hope the process is somewhat democratic and not just the case of several undemocratic organizations shutting a candidate out.) I hear you. Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but it does seem worse than usual this time around. Maybe it's just more obvious this time, since a candidate from outside the mainstream actually has a very solid grassroots movement and decent financial backing. (relative to what these kinds of candidates usually get) And yet he is still ignored, even deliberately diminished, in the news. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On November 14 2011 13:34 Holytornados wrote: It's really unfortunate Eric Cantor isn't running for the Republicans. He's a well-spoken, smart man. But he would never get backing I feel from the majority of the country's Republicans, because, unfortunately, he is Jewish. I would like to see him run aganst Obama. Eric Cantor "The Chosen of the Chosen People" Love me some Daily Show lol Edit. I can't believe Cain is talking about regime change in Iran. Isn't that why Iran is still a little ticked at US from before? Regime change, of a democratically elected government. And then talk about wanting to support opposition in Iran and yet be mad at Obama's tentative support of Libya and Egypt's opposition. I hope they aren't nearly as hawkish as their rhetoric would suggest or the US will be in a couple more Middle East country in a couple years. Yeah this coming from the same man that was on PBS saying that we should worry about China going nuclear rofl. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 14 2011 14:11 unit wrote: keep in mind that the media has been getting away with this since the summer, i believe it started in july/august...at least i noticed it then...its just ridiculous, and if anything it shows corruption more than anything else considering that the media is funded by the very people who profit from fiat money and war, which is exactly what ron paul is against, ron paul is the candidate that is willing and able to help out the average person over the corporations which is exactly why they want him out of the race which is more a more effective way to remove someone from a race? 1) bash them repeatedly on the smallest things, blowing them way out of proportion while hiding the redeeming characteristics (generally done with everyone though so at least it blends in) or 2) act as though the candidate doesnt exist, thus creating the illusion that the candidate isnt even in the race as well as keeping the average person uninformed of the candidate's viewpoints the second option is the correct one keep in mind the easiest ways to control the masses (let me know if i miss any important ones) 1)misinformation - trick them into believing that your agenda helps them, whether it does or does not this is basically what the media has been doing for a long time now, i dont even know when that started (propaganda counts) 2)create an enemy - people are much more likely to buy into your viewpoints if they are afraid of something and you offer them protection just how many wars are we even in? seriously i lost track of the amount of countries that we have committed acts of war against Yes, the media is on to Ron Paul and his game against them! They're trying to shut him down before he tells us all THE TRUTH! Seriously though. They're just going for what generates viewers and money. You really think a lot of people tune in to see Ron Paul in debates? Not really. There's no drama there, no tension, and no surprise. You know he's going to say things that aren't exactly the party line, and you know how he's going to answer all the current event questions. Compare this to Cain, with his 9-9-9, China is using time travel to develop nukes, and, "I don't sexually harass (but am sex and race insensitive)." You have Perry, "What the hell and I going to fumble on today?!" The GOP-friendzone Romney. As for the (de)legitimization of Paul, you have to remember where almost all of his support is: online or unreliable straw polls. In traditional polls, he only does mildly well compared to his name recognition (only 6-8%). When you shift this to online his popularity shoots up, which brings into question those result. After all, the internet beyond Twitter, Facebook, and other social media is full of hacktivists and whatnot. | ||
|
zachMEISTER
United States625 Posts
On November 14 2011 17:37 aksfjh wrote: Yes, the media is on to Ron Paul and his game against them! They're trying to shut him down before he tells us all THE TRUTH! Seriously though. They're just going for what generates viewers and money. You really think a lot of people tune in to see Ron Paul in debates? Not really. There's no drama there, no tension, and no surprise. You know he's going to say things that aren't exactly the party line, and you know how he's going to answer all the current event questions. Compare this to Cain, with his 9-9-9, China is using time travel to develop nukes, and, "I don't sexually harass (but am sex and race insensitive)." You have Perry, "What the hell and I going to fumble on today?!" The GOP-friendzone Romney. As for the (de)legitimization of Paul, you have to remember where almost all of his support is: online or unreliable straw polls. In traditional polls, he only does mildly well compared to his name recognition (only 6-8%). When you shift this to online his popularity shoots up, which brings into question those result. After all, the internet beyond Twitter, Facebook, and other social media is full of hacktivists and whatnot. I feel as though he's managed to establish himself through founding the Tea Part movement, and being one of the only Independent-3rd Party-Libertarian-add-more-hypenated-words-here candidates running. He's managed meager success through previous traditional methods, but now he's backed by internet and "unreliable straw polls". As previously stated, Obama took advantage of the Social Media..but to say that the internet is full of hacktivists? These hacktivists, all use Social media as well..we're all "hacktivists" and we contribute just as much as the other individuals. I honestly think he stands a hell of a chance. | ||
|
Powerpill
United States1693 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 14 2011 17:48 zachMEISTER wrote: I feel as though he's managed to establish himself through founding the Tea Part movement, and being one of the only Independent-3rd Party-Libertarian-add-more-hypenated-words-here candidates running. He's managed meager success through previous traditional methods, but now he's backed by internet and "unreliable straw polls". You just said yourself that Obama took advantage of the Social Media..then turn around and say that the internet is full of hacktivists. These hacktivists, all use Social media as well. I honestly think he stands a hell of a chance. Except Obama polled well outside the internet as well. Not only that, but he had charisma and a story. Also, don't forget that the media has seen Ron Paul many times before, and many akin to Ron Paul over the years. There's always some fringe candidate who isn't part of the established parties but aligns himself with them anyways. This story has been played out before. I will admit that this time it's a little different since Paul does have more support than in the past, but it's not enough of a difference to pass up the other media gems this election cycle. | ||
|
zachMEISTER
United States625 Posts
On November 14 2011 17:56 aksfjh wrote: Except Obama polled well outside the internet as well. Not only that, but he had charisma and a story. Also, don't forget that the media has seen Ron Paul many times before, and many akin to Ron Paul over the years. There's always some fringe candidate who isn't part of the established parties but aligns himself with them anyways. This story has been played out before. I will admit that this time it's a little different since Paul does have more support than in the past, but it's not enough of a difference to pass up the other media gems this election cycle. BUT THEY'RE ALL SUCH BAD ALTERNATIVESS!!!!! EDIT: Adding substance What do you consider a "media gem"? What makes someone worthy of a Foxnews headline or maybe an MSNBC headline? | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
Some statements also seem outright crazy, like when Santorum talks about assassinating foreign scientists. | ||
|
TheBomb
237 Posts
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate. You obviously don't understand his positions or history. The USA is going into a dictatorial police state with the economy crumbling. His plan is basically comon sense. 1. What is the problem? - Debt Only way to fix it is not by getting more in debt, but by cutting government spending and those lost jobs and taxes given to government stay with the people and thus creating more production and jobs. As far as social security or medical care he has said that he won't cut those and that that would be a long term project, but his plan in the 4 years is to cut government spending and government level to the year 2000, which is basically only 10 years ago and not all that unorthodox as people think. But you have to realize that governments are not businesses and you can't run them as such by providing way too much government jobs, because governments don't produce anything, they take from people. But if governments only took to provide for fire departments, police, parliament and/or house of representatives and of course few more departments that are crucial they would need to take less taxes, which means more money staying with the people and thus more production and jobs. Also he is against the bailouts that the occupy wall street is basically protesting and he is not bought and paid off by the special interest like Mitt Romney or Rick Perry is. Herman Cain is also an establishment candidate, but not really favorite to get the job with the establishment. Of course I've found a video of a guy named Alex Jones that spoke with some other guy at the Bilderberg in 2007 and he said that Perry is being set up to become the president and that was 4 years ago and it came true. Of course Perry is such an empty suitcase that even with all the help he is getting he is basically destroying his own chances, because he is an actor and won't do anything he says. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
