|
I've been consciously keeping away from US politics threads but has this been discussed yet?
On August 18 2011 Michelle Bachmann literally said on "Jay Sekulow Live":
I would say it's a unified message. It really is about jobs and the economy. That doesn't mean people haven't forgotten about protecting life and marriage and the sanctity of the family. People are very concerned about that as well. But what people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he'll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we're fighting three wars. People recognize that.
Ah, yes, the Soviet Union.
And Ron Paul is almost as full of shit as Rick Perry, considering his district has been one of the foremost beneficiaries of government spending. He seems honest, but his policies are completely insane and would plunge the United States into 19th-century urban England. He's like a kid running for student body president who promises he will make it recess all day, every day, and rain pizzas; he won't, and it'd be stupid to do such a thing.
|
On August 20 2011 03:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Rick Perry despite what the media may say is not well liked by Republican insiders due to the fact that he is very outspoken and is considered to be even more conservative than Bush is/was.
Wasn't Bush considered a RINO during his last years? Somehow I get the vibe that a lot of Republicans disliked him for not being conservative enough.
|
On August 20 2011 03:40 jon arbuckle wrote:I've been consciously keeping away from US politics threads but has this been discussed yet? Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 Michelle Bachmann literally said on "Jay Sekulow Live":
I would say it's a unified message. It really is about jobs and the economy. That doesn't mean people haven't forgotten about protecting life and marriage and the sanctity of the family. People are very concerned about that as well. But what people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he'll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we're fighting three wars. People recognize that. Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. And Ron Paul is almost as full of shit as Rick Perry, considering his district has been one of the foremost beneficiaries of government spending. He seems honest, but his policies are completely insane and would plunge the United States into 19th-century urban England. He's like a kid running for student body president who promises he will make it recess all day, every day, and rain pizzas; he won't, and it'd be stupid to do such a thing.
I heard the Soviets built a wall straight through the middle of Berlin to keep us out, and Obama just stood back and let it happen. Can you believe that shit?
|
On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote:
I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world.
You just described every Republican candidate. But Ron Paul is easily the only one among them that believes in civil rights. Listen to him talk about gay marriage, about DADT, about the ground zero mosque especially, they're all on YouTube. It will surprise you how "progressive" he is (in reality he just believes and practices what he preaches).
He is on record saying that the constitution doesn't specifically call for separation of church and state, but his record and his positions across the board make it clear that government has no business imposing religious values on people and the first amendment protects all religions. He also said that prayer shouldn't be prohibited in schools but also shouldn't be led by the schools. That is reasonable by any definition.
I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents.
I know some people disagree with Ron Paul from a more liberal perspective, and that's totally fine. But this thread is about the Republican nomination after all, and you have to ask yourself who among them is the best choice and I think that's pretty easily Ron Paul. I mean, he's the only real conservative, the only one who actually believes in all the things the rest of them pretend to care about. It's also the only way we will have a real conversation about real fundamental change in the general election
|
On August 20 2011 04:37 Senorcuidado wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote:
I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world. You just described every Republican candidate. But Ron Paul is easily the only one among them that believes in civil rights. Listen to him talk about gay marriage, about DADT, about the ground zero mosque especially, they're all on YouTube. It will surprise you how "progressive" he is (in reality he just believes and practices what he preaches). He is on record saying that the constitution doesn't specifically call for separation of church and state, but his record and his positions across the board make it clear that government has no business imposing religious values on people and the first amendment protects all religions. He also said that prayer shouldn't be prohibited in schools but also shouldn't be led by the schools. That is reasonable by any definition. I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents. I know some people disagree with Ron Paul from a more liberal perspective, and that's totally fine. But this thread is about the Republican nomination after all, and you have to ask yourself who among them is the best choice and I think that's pretty easily Ron Paul. I mean, he's the only real conservative, the only one who actually believes in all the things the rest of them pretend to care about. It's also the only way we will have a real conversation about real fundamental change in the general election
Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory.
Neo-confederate nutjob.
|
On August 20 2011 04:28 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 03:40 jon arbuckle wrote:I've been consciously keeping away from US politics threads but has this been discussed yet? On August 18 2011 Michelle Bachmann literally said on "Jay Sekulow Live":
I would say it's a unified message. It really is about jobs and the economy. That doesn't mean people haven't forgotten about protecting life and marriage and the sanctity of the family. People are very concerned about that as well. But what people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he'll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we're fighting three wars. People recognize that. Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. And Ron Paul is almost as full of shit as Rick Perry, considering his district has been one of the foremost beneficiaries of government spending. He seems honest, but his policies are completely insane and would plunge the United States into 19th-century urban England. He's like a kid running for student body president who promises he will make it recess all day, every day, and rain pizzas; he won't, and it'd be stupid to do such a thing. I heard the Soviets built a wall straight through the middle of Berlin to keep us out, and Obama just stood back and let it happen. Can you believe that shit?
This made me laugh for a long time. Thank you sir xD
In all seriousness it seems like Mitt Romney is the likely candidate because hes the only one that isnt totally off the chain. The GOP is not going to back someone who they don't think they can control, and everyone but Romney is either bound to the tea-party or just too conservative to win in the general election, or both.
|
On August 20 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 04:37 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote:
I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world. You just described every Republican candidate. But Ron Paul is easily the only one among them that believes in civil rights. Listen to him talk about gay marriage, about DADT, about the ground zero mosque especially, they're all on YouTube. It will surprise you how "progressive" he is (in reality he just believes and practices what he preaches). He is on record saying that the constitution doesn't specifically call for separation of church and state, but his record and his positions across the board make it clear that government has no business imposing religious values on people and the first amendment protects all religions. He also said that prayer shouldn't be prohibited in schools but also shouldn't be led by the schools. That is reasonable by any definition. I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents. I know some people disagree with Ron Paul from a more liberal perspective, and that's totally fine. But this thread is about the Republican nomination after all, and you have to ask yourself who among them is the best choice and I think that's pretty easily Ron Paul. I mean, he's the only real conservative, the only one who actually believes in all the things the rest of them pretend to care about. It's also the only way we will have a real conversation about real fundamental change in the general election Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory. Neo-confederate nutjob.
Erm, I'm not sure if we are talking about the same guy. I've sat through entire Republican debates, watched mostly entire interviews, and read one of his books. I won't pretend to know everything about all the candidates but I have studied him quite a bit and can safely say that I've never seen, heard, or read any such statements by Ron Paul.
|
Well Ron Pauls son is famously not that into the civil rights thing, thats for sure.
|
On August 20 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 04:37 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote:
I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world. You just described every Republican candidate. But Ron Paul is easily the only one among them that believes in civil rights. Listen to him talk about gay marriage, about DADT, about the ground zero mosque especially, they're all on YouTube. It will surprise you how "progressive" he is (in reality he just believes and practices what he preaches). He is on record saying that the constitution doesn't specifically call for separation of church and state, but his record and his positions across the board make it clear that government has no business imposing religious values on people and the first amendment protects all religions. He also said that prayer shouldn't be prohibited in schools but also shouldn't be led by the schools. That is reasonable by any definition. I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents. I know some people disagree with Ron Paul from a more liberal perspective, and that's totally fine. But this thread is about the Republican nomination after all, and you have to ask yourself who among them is the best choice and I think that's pretty easily Ron Paul. I mean, he's the only real conservative, the only one who actually believes in all the things the rest of them pretend to care about. It's also the only way we will have a real conversation about real fundamental change in the general election Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory. Neo-confederate nutjob.
Might you give us a source as to where he says this stuff before I can actually take your comments seriously?
EDIT: Nevermind, found a link here as to why he says the Civil Rights Act is flawed
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Really don't understand the hate, he just gave an objective reasoning as to why it was flawed and he does have a point there but it seems some people just overexaggerate it and see it as a polarized way just so people could antagonize him.
|
On August 20 2011 05:00 Senorcuidado wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:On August 20 2011 04:37 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote:
I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world. You just described every Republican candidate. But Ron Paul is easily the only one among them that believes in civil rights. Listen to him talk about gay marriage, about DADT, about the ground zero mosque especially, they're all on YouTube. It will surprise you how "progressive" he is (in reality he just believes and practices what he preaches). He is on record saying that the constitution doesn't specifically call for separation of church and state, but his record and his positions across the board make it clear that government has no business imposing religious values on people and the first amendment protects all religions. He also said that prayer shouldn't be prohibited in schools but also shouldn't be led by the schools. That is reasonable by any definition. I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents. I know some people disagree with Ron Paul from a more liberal perspective, and that's totally fine. But this thread is about the Republican nomination after all, and you have to ask yourself who among them is the best choice and I think that's pretty easily Ron Paul. I mean, he's the only real conservative, the only one who actually believes in all the things the rest of them pretend to care about. It's also the only way we will have a real conversation about real fundamental change in the general election Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory. Neo-confederate nutjob. Erm, I'm not sure if we are talking about the same guy. I've sat through entire Republican debates, watched mostly entire interviews, and read one of his books. I won't pretend to know everything about all the candidates but I have studied him quite a bit and can safely say that I've never seen, heard, or read any such statements by Ron Paul.
I dont tend to bother myself with watching anything with him in anymore so besides googling it off the top of my head, first candidate debate fox had this season, he was asked on gay marriage said that fed gov shouldnt prohibit it, got some applause for saying government should stay out of it, then once the applause died down he said the states should be the ones denying it not the federal government.
I don't have speakers on my computer at the office but it was the may sc republican debate with the fox news crew, its on youtube.
|
On August 20 2011 04:54 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 04:28 Bibdy wrote:On August 20 2011 03:40 jon arbuckle wrote:I've been consciously keeping away from US politics threads but has this been discussed yet? On August 18 2011 Michelle Bachmann literally said on "Jay Sekulow Live":
I would say it's a unified message. It really is about jobs and the economy. That doesn't mean people haven't forgotten about protecting life and marriage and the sanctity of the family. People are very concerned about that as well. But what people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he'll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we're fighting three wars. People recognize that. Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. And Ron Paul is almost as full of shit as Rick Perry, considering his district has been one of the foremost beneficiaries of government spending. He seems honest, but his policies are completely insane and would plunge the United States into 19th-century urban England. He's like a kid running for student body president who promises he will make it recess all day, every day, and rain pizzas; he won't, and it'd be stupid to do such a thing. I heard the Soviets built a wall straight through the middle of Berlin to keep us out, and Obama just stood back and let it happen. Can you believe that shit? This made me laugh for a long time. Thank you sir xD In all seriousness it seems like Mitt Romney is the likely candidate because hes the only one that isnt totally off the chain. The GOP is not going to back someone who they don't think they can control, and everyone but Romney is either bound to the tea-party or just too conservative to win in the general election, or both.
I weep at how serious I was. It kind of describes the US' political theatre down to a T. The only way a person like Bachmann could even last a minute in modern politics is if there's an incredible number of people who are just plain fucking stupid and willing enough to believe anything and everything they're told.
I think a lot of people and shows like Fox News are absolutely genuine in their desire to support these people (in Fox's case because they know there's a lot of money to be made from the stupid) and it scares the everloving shit out of me.
|
On August 20 2011 05:03 DannyJ wrote:
Well Ron Pauls son is famously not that into the civil rights thing, thats for sure.
Yeah Rand Paul is kind of a clumsy guy. Rachel Maddow kicked his ass, and I'm not sure how he won his election after that. He has since backed off that statement iirc, and he had a very reasonable conversation with Jon Stewart about the role of government. Regardless, he and his father disagree about things, like the ground zero mosque. I think Rand represents the tea party over anything else while Ron, despite having the legitimate claim to their whole philosphy, represents real libertarianism.
|
On August 20 2011 04:10 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 03:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Rick Perry despite what the media may say is not well liked by Republican insiders due to the fact that he is very outspoken and is considered to be even more conservative than Bush is/was. Wasn't Bush considered a RINO during his last years? Somehow I get the vibe that a lot of Republicans disliked him for not being conservative enough.
Yes pretty much. Perry is fairly liberal too (immigration and abortion), but at least has run a good economy in Texas which is more than Obama can say. Romney is the most liberal of the bunch from a state that elected Kerry, Frank, and Kennedy.. and suddenly they elect a republican? That should tell you all you need to know about Romney.
I like Ron Paul's ideas (except the stance on Iran and nuclear weapons), but the ticket is going to be Rick Perry and Marko Rubio.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 20 2011 05:21 Playguuu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 04:10 TOloseGT wrote:On August 20 2011 03:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Rick Perry despite what the media may say is not well liked by Republican insiders due to the fact that he is very outspoken and is considered to be even more conservative than Bush is/was. Wasn't Bush considered a RINO during his last years? Somehow I get the vibe that a lot of Republicans disliked him for not being conservative enough. Yes pretty much. Perry is fairly liberal too (immigration and abortion), but at least has run a good economy in Texas which is more than Obama can say. Romney is the most liberal of the bunch from a state that elected Kerry, Frank, and Kennedy.. and suddenly they elect a republican? That should tell you all you need to know about Romney. I like Ron Paul's ideas (except the stance on Iran and nuclear weapons), but the ticket is going to be Rick Perry and Marko Rubio.
Isn't Perry the guy who's school transcript was released and had C's, D's, and F's in all his economic classes?
|
I feel like Perry is taking an awful lot of credit for something he didn't have anything to do with, AND he's trying to sell it off as something it's not. Austin already had a lot of momentum and branding as the next big place for tech jobs (a la silicon valley) long before Perry came to office and lots of fast-growing tech companies have been springing up sites there (my company included) due to the much lower costs of living in the area compared to CA (thus much lower payroll expenses, setup costs and thus ease of expanding business). On top of that, I hear that a lot of the jobs 'he created' were government jobs - exactly the kind of jobs the Republicans despise.
|
On August 20 2011 05:08 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 05:00 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 20 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:On August 20 2011 04:37 Senorcuidado wrote:On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote:
I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world. You just described every Republican candidate. But Ron Paul is easily the only one among them that believes in civil rights. Listen to him talk about gay marriage, about DADT, about the ground zero mosque especially, they're all on YouTube. It will surprise you how "progressive" he is (in reality he just believes and practices what he preaches). He is on record saying that the constitution doesn't specifically call for separation of church and state, but his record and his positions across the board make it clear that government has no business imposing religious values on people and the first amendment protects all religions. He also said that prayer shouldn't be prohibited in schools but also shouldn't be led by the schools. That is reasonable by any definition. I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents. I know some people disagree with Ron Paul from a more liberal perspective, and that's totally fine. But this thread is about the Republican nomination after all, and you have to ask yourself who among them is the best choice and I think that's pretty easily Ron Paul. I mean, he's the only real conservative, the only one who actually believes in all the things the rest of them pretend to care about. It's also the only way we will have a real conversation about real fundamental change in the general election Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory. Neo-confederate nutjob. Erm, I'm not sure if we are talking about the same guy. I've sat through entire Republican debates, watched mostly entire interviews, and read one of his books. I won't pretend to know everything about all the candidates but I have studied him quite a bit and can safely say that I've never seen, heard, or read any such statements by Ron Paul. I dont tend to bother myself with watching anything with him in anymore so besides googling it off the top of my head, first candidate debate fox had this season, he was asked on gay marriage said that fed gov shouldnt prohibit it, got some applause for saying government should stay out of it, then once the applause died down he said the states should be the ones denying it not the federal government. I don't have speakers on my computer at the office but it was the may sc republican debate with the fox news crew, its on youtube.
that is a severe misrepresentation of what he said. I can't believe how many times we have to rehash this in this thread. He said keep the government out of marriage, let the people do whatever they want, keep it between them and their churches, marriage shouldn't be a government institution at all, why should we have to ask the government's permission to get married? Then, and this is what you latch onto for proof, he said that if you MUST have government somehow involved, the issue would be a state issue since it isn't delegated to Congress. I've heard him talk about it many times and he writes about it in his manifesto, he has always been consistent. I have fought hard for gay rights my whole life, I would not endorse an anti-gay candidate for anything.
|
About the chart
29% - Percentage of Ron Paul’s campaign coverage in 2011 compared to Donald Trump's
In the days after his runner-up finish to Michele Bachmann in Iowa’s August 13 GOP straw poll, Texas Congressman Ron Paul complained about a lack of media coverage, accusing the press of being “frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment."
As pundits debate whether Paul is getting the attention he deserves, a PEJ analysis of campaign coverage this year indicates he is the 10th leading election newsmaker— trailing far behind non-candidates Donald Trump and Sarah Palin and as well as floundering Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich.
From January 1-August 14, Paul has been a dominant newsmaker in only 27 campaign stories. (To be considered a dominant newsmaker, someone must be featured in at least 50% of a story.) That is less than one-quarter of the media attention generated by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (120 stories), who is the top newsmaker among Republican candidates. And he has received 25% as much coverage as Bachmann, the Minnesota Congresswoman (108 stories).
Paul’s coverage also lags far behind Trump (94 stories), who dallied with a run before opting out in mid-May and Palin (85 stories), who has given no indication to date that she will enter the race. In addition, Paul trails longshot candidate and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman (44 stories) and Texas Governor, Rick Perry (33 stories) who only announced his candidacy on August 13.
The only significant GOP candidates that Paul is besting are former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum (21 stories) and businessman Herman Cain (11 stories).
The top campaign newsmaker overall is incumbent President Barack Obama, at 221 stories.
In a further attempt to gauge the post-straw poll attention to Paul’s campaign, PEJ also used the Snapstream server’s closed captioning capability to assess the candidates’ television coverage in the first few days after that balloting.
The sample included the three network Sunday morning panel shows on August 14, the morning and evening network news programs on August 15 and four hours of prime-time cable and one hour of daytime from each of the three major cable news networks on August 15.
According to that analysis, Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times.
Tricia Sartor of PEJ
Date Posted: August 17, 2011
http://www.journalism.org/numbers_report/are_media_ignoring_ron_paul
|
On August 20 2011 05:21 Playguuu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2011 04:10 TOloseGT wrote:On August 20 2011 03:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Rick Perry despite what the media may say is not well liked by Republican insiders due to the fact that he is very outspoken and is considered to be even more conservative than Bush is/was. Wasn't Bush considered a RINO during his last years? Somehow I get the vibe that a lot of Republicans disliked him for not being conservative enough. Yes pretty much. Perry is fairly liberal too (immigration and abortion), but at least has run a good economy in Texas which is more than Obama can say. Romney is the most liberal of the bunch from a state that elected Kerry, Frank, and Kennedy.. and suddenly they elect a republican? That should tell you all you need to know about Romney. I like Ron Paul's ideas ( except the stance on Iran and nuclear weapons), but the ticket is going to be Rick Perry and Marko Rubio.
what problems you have with it?
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 20 2011 01:41 0mar wrote:Huntsman has the kiss of death by working with Obama. The Republican party is so anti-Obama that if he wiped his ass with his right hand, they'd complain he should wipe with his left. On top of that, any Republican candidate that acknowledges global warming or evolution is automatically disqualified. So yea, he's dead. This is a three person race right now; Perry, Romney and Bachmann. None of them can beat Obama in a real election once their views hit the mainstream. They are extreme in their views, especially Perry and Bachmann. Romney is a Mormon, which automatically turns him off to the evangelical base of the Republicans. He won't survive the primaries.
It's a shame, Huntsman is the only decent candidate they have in terms of who would actually do a good job or be competent. The rest are all fucking morons.
|
Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory.
Neo-confederate nutjob.
@abominare Are you even listening? I've watched every one of his debates going back from 2008. He's for letting the states decide what to do. On every social issues he's for letting states decide on how to do things. Even better yet, your local government. You must be a troll because I really can not understand your logic.
As for me I'm urging my friends/family to vote for Ron Paul because he's the only candidate who is anti-war, anti-patriot act, and for the government legislating morality. All the other presidential candidates are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
