I take no position here on any candidate’s chances of winning. For one thing, anyone’s prognostication on that point might turn out to be wrong someday, if they were all given a fair shake.
Regardless, the debate is improved by including more perspectives. Even if the present media conception of Romney/Bachmann/Perry as the “top tier,” the only candidates with a chance to win the nomination, were absolutely correct, their responses to Paul’s challenge might serve to distinguish each of them, might assist in making a better choice among them–or between the eventual nominee and Obama. Opening the forum of ideas wider makes the democratic process more vigorous and serious.
And again, it’s not just Paul this year. Almost every cycle there are “fringe” candidates who are written off by media outlets far too early. Many names could be substituted for those above and the argument would hold.
And I agree there is a point at which that becomes excessive. It’s also true that there was no way Gravel or Kucinich was going to be nominated in 2008 because their views appeal to a small minority of Democrats and Americans in general.
How what? How would I know what is going on around the globe? Well, if you’re socially dynamic, both online and offline, and take a peek outside of the SDMB and MSM, you’ll notice what is going on around the states, and around the globe.
Dismantled by means of exposure.
1988 the internet didn’t really exist. 2008 was a seed. It’s not that hard to figure it out what 2012 will be.
It’s not a religious belief. Religion relies solely on faith.
It’s an obstacle. Not an impossibility.
This isn’t happening tomorrow. We’ll just get to see how it unfolds as time goes on.
It’s pretty normal. I mean, Ron Paul has said on many different occasions, including that DS clip, that he would dismantle the US imperial apparatus, the massive overseas base network, and dramatically cut down the military’s size and scope. You can’t say things like that and be taken seriously by the elites who run the country, no matter how popular it is among the rubes. He has zero chance. And that’s ignoring all the actual nutty things he says (he’s still a goldbug, I assume).
Why they even let him up on the stage with the rest of the big business stooges I don’t know. I guess to give the appearance that some sort of real debate is taking place, like when the Dems put Kucinch up there in recent years. The DS clip is good example of the kabuki that’s going on though.
I’m a regular dynamo as far as I’m concerned (and my mom says I’m cool). But I don’t know what you are saying is going on around the world. If you’re just saying “damn the man” in general, fine.
I also don’t know how one carries an elephant to the top of a mountain. That might be biting off a bridge too far.
Again, I don’t know what you’re talking about. The internet is a great tool but its invention didn’t dismantle anything. And your vaguely prophetic tone does make it seem like this is more a religious than political thing.
Ron Paul is about to turn 76, so even if you don’t think he’s too old now, he doesn’t have that many electoral tomorrows left. And if he can’t win in the primaries, getting elected is impossible by definition.
Because we’re talking about U.S. elections, not an X-Files episode.
It’s known to be a fact - my above post showing some basic examples - of how this transparency is allowing people to get a better view on the sugar-coated corruption which we currently live with that manipulates our decisions and our opinions.
I’m not a fan of corruption. Nor is anyone else.
Maybe look at the driving force behind Anonymous and you’ll get a clue of how transparency is changing the tides a bit. And the idea is only in it’s infancy.
Now, I’m not insinuating this idea is what will help Paul in his efforts, just saying that, with what information we can exchange today, and the forces behind Paul who are driving his ideas, it is making a large impact, whether you can see that or not.
What does age have to do with anything? As long as he can walk, talk, play some golf, and sign a document, that’s all that really matters. He isn’t going to be running through the desert with 90 pounds of equipment.
And as I said, it’s an obstacle. If you want to neglect any improvement in his potential based solely his last 2 runs, that’s purely your own opinion.
Like I said, I don’t think the press neglects Ron Paul. His son just got elected to the Senate based primarily on name recognition. Really, tell me someone who finished in a comparable position during a previous primary race but continued to get the coverage he does. Paul’s positions can be argued on their own merits, but the idea that powerful people are scared of him and there’s a conspiracy against him is just nonsense. Unfortunately, some of the people who like Ron Paul really enjoy that nonsense.
It’s helped him some in that in other election cycles, he would have been totally ignored. But it’s nowhere close to getting him elected president.
I think I’d see what you were talking about if you were talking about anything in particular.
He’s an old man. He seems healthy, but how many more election cycles do you think he’s going to be around for?
Some of us think he’s a lunatic because of his track record and voting record. (If there’s a conspiracy against him, which I really doubt, it’s one that covers up some of the absolutely insane things he’s proposed. I always hear a lot about his foreign policy views, but never much about his proposals to essentially repeal the Bill of Rights’ application to state actions.)
I don’t really follow GOP politics, so help me out here. Paul is being ignored because he’s a lunatic. OK. And Bachmann is NOT being ignored because … ?
There’s prospective candidates Kent Mesplay for the Greens and Lee Wrights for the Libertarians. Presumably the Constitution Party will come up with somebody as well.
These are “major” sort of like Epulopiscium is a “big” bacteria.
The truth is that stations like Fox are not reporting the news. They are making it. Paul came in 2nd. If the election was at all important, he should have gotten a lot of attention. But they are not backing him. therefore he does not get air time. Daly showed them scoffing and laughing at their Libertarian /Republican who almost beat their Fav, ,Bachmann.He was disrespected .
Ron Paul supporters will do everything they can to make it look like he’s got more support than he does. Anyone who’s run a website poll knows the second the online RP community catches wind, they’ll be stuffing the virtual ballot box - and telling all their RP-supporter buddies to do it too.
Paul’s come close to winning some important polls. He’s also collected a lot of money. Those two facts held 4 years ago. The excitement, the hype, the money - what did it amount to in 2008? Why should we expect it to amount to anything in 2012? At what point is it acceptable to stop paying attention to a perennial candidate?
The longer this discussion goes, the less of a problem I have with the way Paul’s finish was covered. I don’t think he should be ignored, but I do think it’s OK to take his strengths and weaknesses as a candidate into account. If you think he’s likely to springboard from a second-place finish in this straw poll to a serious shot at the Republican nomination - regardless of how the press covers the primaries - you’re not being realistic.
