Its obvious now with the last debate, that the media and republican party is squarely against letting Ron Paul speak at all. Are they really that afraid of someone in their ranks who can think outside of the box and help America?
www.ronpaul2008.com
2007-10-10 06:42:14 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No one is afraid of a great leader reject toy and
a few trolls spamming every unmoderated niche.
2007-10-10 06:49:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 18⤊ 2⤋
Dang top they're. he's not beholden to major pastime communities like the protection rigidity. a proper celebration is this upcoming Iowa talk board on taxes. Who better stands for decrease taxes than Mr Paul? yet thie head of it received't enable him take area. also Sean Hannity's clinical care replaced into terrible to assert the least.
2016-10-20 06:26:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Brick short of a full load>Has2 many issues>Couldn't work with the 2 partys>
2007-10-10 06:45:59 · answer #3 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 8⤊ 3⤋
Because they depend on their television ratings?
2007-10-13 12:41:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Spin it however you want. I think they are trying to give more time to the front runners. I was surprised at how many questions he was sent in the debate last night.
And to be honest with you, the guy comes off a little less than "Presidential" when he opens his mouth.
2007-10-10 06:46:47 · answer #5 · answered by Chef 6 · 17⤊ 3⤋
He spoke, I listened. I came away thinking two things. He's not anywhere near being a Republican and he's more than a little wacky. We haven't had a imminent threat in this country in our 220 years? Did Paul miss 9/11 or something? I'm not a Republican and won't be voting for any of them, but please.
They are not afraid of him. Why do most of Paul's supporters interpret lack of interest and rejection as fear? Despite the obvious, which is that the Republican Party does not consider this guy one of them and will never nominate him, his supporters still hold out hope that he'll somehow capture the nomination. They could have a lot more hope if they'd just face the facts and enourage him to run independently. Not that he'd get near the Presidency in any case, but at least he'd be out of a group of candidates that do little but make fun of him and roll their eyes when he talks.
EDIT: hi jessica
That may be what he meant, but it didn't come out that way and Giuliani jumped on it to much applause. Honestly I think he's a good man in principle. But he needs to be more careful about the impressions he leaves with those watching these debates. Just like in the first one, when he came away sounding like he was blaming America for getting hit on 9/11. He may not have MEANT to sound like an American apologist, but that was most people's impression and it hurt him. Same with the comment about the imminent threat. He should have been clearer about what he meant and he should have insisted on answering Rudy's challenge to it, which he did not. In the end, I still believe the only chance that Paul has at all is to leave the Republicans and run independently. The Republicans just aren't going to put their arms around this guy and support him, hasn't that become obvious? Mostly due to you jessica, I watched that debate carefully last night and resolved to listen closely to Ron Paul. I actually did like much of what he had to say. There's more I do not agree with, but I did take the time to listen. In a more practical vein I also watched the reaction to his statements from the other candidates. They seemed more amused than afraid of him and that's never good. Not that they decide who the nominee is but their reactions are a pretty good monitor of what the Republican powers that be think about him as well.
I admire a lot of Paul's supporters. Some I find annoying as hell because they don't like to apply reality to what his position truly is within the Republican Party. Maybe you can tell me - is there a movement at ALL to talk Paul into running independently, and if not, why not? Thanks.
EDIT: Thanks jessica, I can always count on you for a realistic view of things. And yes, I understand supporting a candidate one really believes in, I'm doing it myself. I did access and answer your question and am looking forward to your thoughts on well...my thoughts, if you have the time. Thanks again and have a great day - off to do errands!
EDIT: Jessica:
Oh yes, I understand fully that Romney and Giuliani were both lying. I was not sticking up for either of them, or for anyone on that stage to tell the truth. But I'm basically talking more about the perception of what's going on in those debates. Most people watching these debates do not have as much knowledge of the specifics as we who are virtual politics junkies. When I look at it from the average person's view point I see two things. One that the rest of the candidates do not show him much respect and it shows in their tone and their body language when he is speaking or when they are speaking to him. And two - that in order to take on these clowns he's got to be more aggressive and fight for his right to reply to them. For the average voter it's more about perception than in depth knowledge. I just maintain he gets no respect from his rivals and if he wants to make a bigger dent he's got to be louder and more aggressive with them and have the words to put them in their place. Only then will he get grudging respect from them. That's important because right or wrong voters take their cues from the rest of the pack.
EDIT: Respect back at you Jessica, I too value informed voters. In this forum, it's almost depressing sometimes because we see just how UNinformed so many are, and how many choose their candidates based on surface impressions and not on in-depth knowledge. We do support different candidates and that is just fine. I can respect your choice, as I believe you respect mine. Thanks again for being such a reasonable and well informed poster, it's been a real pleasure. And on a side note, whatever your job is in the media I'm sure you are wicked good at it ;-). Take care.
2007-10-10 06:52:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 12⤊ 6⤋
You ever see a scrawny little dude who tries to show how tough he is by trying to pick a fight with a big guy? The big guy, rather than just knocking him out, laughs and walks away, totally ignoring the little guy who he knows can't hurt him. The little guy will then convince himself that the big guy is scared of him.
Same situation here.
2007-10-10 06:46:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 18⤊ 4⤋
Ron, who?
2007-10-10 06:45:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
when cnn tried to keep him out, I was one of
the first to sign the petition for him, but now this
mendaciously squealing fake and his spammers have
overstressed my nerves thoroughly. he is a dead duck
which only keeps flying because he didn't hear the shot.
2007-10-10 07:01:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 16⤊ 2⤋
Because he tells the "truth". (I don't believe that any politician actually tells the whole truth, but Ron Paul is as close to it as may be). I think that a lot of disillusioned Republicans are listening to Ron Paul, they are tired of the "fear" talk and of being taken for a ride. It sounds like Ron Paul is truer to the original ideas of the party and the Constitution. I don't think he has the charisma to pull it off but I'm sure he's going to do better than anyone thought a few months back.
2007-10-10 06:55:08 · answer #10 · answered by S007 3 · 2⤊ 15⤋