PDA

View Full Version : The Politico Arena: Can Ron Paul Trump critics in 2012?




bobbyw24
02-12-2011, 08:14 AM
The Question:

David Mark Moderator :

At CPAC Thursday Donald Trump, a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, was met with a mix of cheers and boos when he said, "Ron Paul can't win."

Was Trump right about the libertarian-leaning GOP Texas congressman, who's eyeing a 2012 White House bid? Paul's best showing in 2008 was a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire despite outraising several primary opponents. Has the prolonged recession turned voter attitudes his way on skepticism of the Federal Reserve, an isolationist foreign policy and other issues?

The Answers:

http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/can-ron-paul-trump-critics-in-2012.html

Lucille
02-12-2011, 08:31 AM
That was awful.

Legend1104
02-12-2011, 09:03 AM
I can't wait to see their faces when he starts winning in 2012.

bobbyw24
02-12-2011, 09:04 AM
That was awful.

And so it begins

Bern
02-12-2011, 09:11 AM
... Paul's best showing in 2008 was a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire ...

Bullshit! (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#302)

TomtheTinker
02-12-2011, 09:16 AM
What these people can't grasp is that the political climate is changing and their logic is off..while they are right it would be very difficult for Paul to win..things are changing and the current GOP field isn't very strong. I know we are having a huge impact..the Republican party is not growing..that is its not growing outside of our circle...Liberty is on the march and the political hacks don't have the ability or the understanding at this time to explain what is happening..but it is happening.

For example..do you think in the early 1700's the so called "experts" saw the on coming age of enlightenment ..changes in philosophy are almost impossible for the established to predict..I have hope for the future..I have hope for Ron Paul..but most of all, I have hope for LIBERTY.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2011, 09:27 AM
Wow...that was as bad as it comes. No intellectual honesty. No integrity. All lies and propaganda. That woman especially was completely wrong on every single thing she said.

ItsTime
02-12-2011, 09:28 AM
NH was his best showing? Do these buffoons even research anything anymore? Or is it a competition to see who can squirt out the most propaganda.

kpitcher
02-12-2011, 09:28 AM
I think it's a smart business move on their part. They make money on advertising. Ron Paul has a large following online. Talk bad about the guy and you get a lot of hits. It wouldn't surprise me if they see a spike in hits with every anti-Paul post.

hazek
02-12-2011, 10:03 AM
I can't wait to see their faces when he starts winning in 2012.

Won't happen because you don't understand that by them saying these things they are in effect making it a reality.

Unless we primarily focus on beating media propaganda Ron does not stand a chance and I'm willing to bet all I have on this statement.

torchbearer
02-12-2011, 10:07 AM
Won't happen because you don't understand that by them saying these things they are in effect making it a reality.

Unless we primarily focus on beating media propaganda Ron does not stand a chance and I'm willing to bet all I have on this statement.

seems like some articles i've read are prepping the public for ron to win straw polls, but dismiss them by saying he has organized spammers to win the events that "mean nothing", which will be their mantra is ron does sweep the straw polls.

hazek
02-12-2011, 10:17 AM
And I believe you are a 100% correct.

pacelli
02-12-2011, 10:27 AM
seems like some articles i've read are prepping the public for ron to win straw polls, but dismiss them by saying he has organized spammers to win the events that "mean nothing", which will be their mantra is ron does sweep the straw polls.

You hit the nail on the head. This is EXACTLY what is happening.

In the 2007-2008 campaign, the big loser was the media. They blatantly showed their bias. So when I read things like the crap in politico article, I fully expect them to lose again. This has nothing to do with Ron Paul as an individual, and everything to do with the FEAR that their corporate masters have at the idea of what Ron Paul's message symbolizes.

Is it any surprise that one of Kissinger's idiots, a rep from the Brookings Institute, and various university faculty goons were selected as experts? The media will now use people with degrees to undermine the strength of Ron's message because they know that their own organizations have already lost all credibility.

They might as well dress somebody up in a doctor's coat and tell us, "Voting for Ron Paul may lead to headaches, bloody nose, and weight gain".

sailingaway
02-12-2011, 10:33 AM
Trump was just trying to manipulate those 'crazy Paulbots' to keep his name in the news. If you respond, don't mention him.

Why it's almost as predictable a result as scheduling Rumsfield to get a defender of the Constitution award before Rand's supporters have time to leave the room -- then surprising them with Dick Cheney to present the award.

We have to stop being so manipulatable.

However, the 'facts' in that report are simply wrong.

YumYum
02-12-2011, 10:48 AM
You have to get rid of the electronic voting fraud for Ron Paul to win.

: "With today’s advanced computers, though, there is an alternative to ballot boxes and hanging chads: electronic voting, where voters press buttons on a computer (or a touch screen) and make their choices. Computers, being the exact, efficient counting and tabulating machines there are, would seem like a good choice to ward off possible election fraud. The information remains in the machine (or is uploaded to a central server) until it’s counted, at which point there are no questions about the results. It’s a sure-fire way to eliminate any doubt as to the results of an election, no?

No, says Aviel Rubin, a professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University and one of the world’s leading experts on electronic voting.

“One of the big problems with the move to electronic voting is the growth of what I call ‘wholesale fraud,’ versus the ‘retail fraud’ of paper ballots or lever voting machines,” he says. “With paper ballots and levers, you have to go on-site to the polling place in order to perpetrate fraud, limiting the possibilities. But if you can corrupt the code on an electronic machine, you can implement fraud on many machines, all at once, in a wholesale manner.”

Despite the risks, electronic voting is here to stay. After the 2000 presidential election in Florida, where the results of voting were disputed for months, it took a Supreme Court decision to finally allow for the election’s results to be certified. That event scared politicians, says Rubin, and they realized that something had to be done to prevent a repeat.

“At the time, electronic voting systems were coming into vogue, and politicians, considering the triumph of technology in other areas of society, saw computers as an easy solution to questionable election results,” he says."

http://www.jpost.com/Business/BusinessFeatures/Article.aspx?id=193584

KramerDSP
02-12-2011, 11:19 AM
Only one of the multiple "experts" said Paul had a outside shot at winning. I think that person said that if Palin doesn't run, it's a whole new ball game. I really don't think Palin will run. Unfortunately, all of the "experts" have degrees and fancy titles next to their names. The propoganda of "Ron Paul is unelectable" is gaining steam again.

sailingaway
02-12-2011, 11:21 AM
Only one of the multiple "experts" said Paul had a outside shot at winning. I think that person said that if Palin doesn't run, it's a whole new ball game. I really don't think Palin will run. Unfortunately, all of the "experts" have degrees and fancy titles next to their names. The propoganda of "Ron Paul is unelectable" is gaining steam again.

Yeah, but it is possible it will be looked at more skeptically. He has a 70% name recognition now, and a whole bunch of those people have READ that he was marginalized by media. They may not research that to see if they agree, but if they keep seeing it now, it may ring a bell. We can hope they are shooting themselves in the foot.

sratiug
02-12-2011, 11:56 AM
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_ primaries,_2008

Ron Paul 2nd place finishes
10
(Nevada, Montana, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho, South Dakota, New Mexico, Northern Mariana Islands)

17 Ron Paul 3rd place finishes
(North Dakota, Utah, Alaska, Maine, Kansas, Washington, Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina, Washington DC, Puerto Rico)

So they were off by at least 27 states.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2011, 12:18 PM
When did propagandists/liars ever let facts get in the way? We need to fight this propaganda hard.

matt0611
02-12-2011, 12:20 PM
Won't happen because you don't understand that by them saying these things they are in effect making it a reality.

Unless we primarily focus on beating media propaganda Ron does not stand a chance and I'm willing to bet all I have on this statement.

This, I couldn't agree more. We can help Ron by winning straw polls. talking to people, donating money, getting some good publicity etc
but it really comes down to the media propaganda machine, if they say he can't win then he won't.
If we had control of the main-stream media this race would be in the bag.
Without it, we can put up a good fight, but we may be doomed...

sailingaway
02-12-2011, 12:26 PM
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_ primaries,_2008

Ron Paul 2nd place finishes
10
(Nevada, Montana, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho, South Dakota, New Mexico, Northern Mariana Islands)

17 Ron Paul 3rd place finishes
(North Dakota, Utah, Alaska, Maine, Kansas, Washington, Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina, Washington DC, Puerto Rico)

So they were off by at least 27 states.

I'm posting that.

Eric21ND
02-12-2011, 03:46 PM
They can't even report accurately. Ron's best showing was 2nd place in Nevada. His best delegate total came from North Dakota where he also had a strong showing.

Eric21ND
02-12-2011, 03:51 PM
They can say what they will. We just need to point out their lies and continue dominating straw polls. If we can take away one piece of the propaganda machine we're doing some good.

Valli6
02-12-2011, 03:54 PM
http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/can-ron-paul-trump-critics-in-2012.html#B9A461B4-B786-4B6C-97F7-A49A3513C58B

Since politico won't allow me to respond, :mad: I hope you don't mind if I post my analysis of some of these expert opinions here.
...

Garry South - Democratic consultant, The Garry South Group:


His statement includes most of the standard, over-used, derogatory adjectives. His opinion is entirely insult based. Erroneously claims Paul is pushing for a return to the gold standard! I think we can agree that this is the typical and most often used approach.

His argument:


can never be elected
quixotic
quirky
school-marmish
eccentric
too far removed from the average person's day to day concerns
looks like a clerk in a hardware store
gold standard misinformation



Factual substance: 0
...

Tyler Harber - Vice President of Wilson Research Strategies:


He claims positive qualities are detriments! :eek:
Confuses black with white, up with down! :confused:

A reality-based rewrite of his statement would read:


Ron Paul destroys his credibility by being Ron Paul. His views are "popular among conservatives and libertarians." He embraces issues that I know aren't actually bizarre, but I'll refer to them as "seemingly bizarre" to alter perceptions. Likewise, while he's not actually a fringe candidate I'll claim that he "creates the impression" that he is.

Ron Paul "strengthened the libertarian movement!" Ron Paul is responsible for setting off the whole tea party phenomena! The cat is now out of the bag and mainstream media is forced to stop pretending otherwise. Because of the obvious influence he's had on political discussion and the American electorate, I couldn't bear seeing him "viewed as a viable candidate for president."

Ron Paul wins most straw polls, but he usual performs poorly in all surveys that leave his name out! These surveys are created by establishment people who "see Dr Paul as an outsider holding fringe views". "Voters probably have more in common with Dr. Paul than not," but the media has worked very, very hard to establish "a soured view of him - a" tactic "that isn't likely to change"!

...

Jeremy Mayer - Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University :


His argument:

Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee in 2012. No way.
That said, if he WERE republican nominee there is no way he could win the presidency. No way.
...wacky… bizzarre… lie*…


What he's actually saying:


I hate Ron Paul!

*I can't find any speech, legislation or ANY action Ron Paul has ever taken, where he advocates anything other than treating all people equally! Nor can I find any human who can claim to have received any injury - racial, emotional or otherwise at the hands (or voice) of Dr. Paul! If I wanted to be fair, I would learn and acknowledge that those who vehemently reject collectivism are precluded from such behavior! Just the same I and everyone within my social bubble choose to slander him as racist! It's okay because we are NEVER punished, chastised or admonished in any way for this disgraceful crime! I mean - I'm an associate professor at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University for God's sake!

Since relatively few people have heard of Gary Johnson, and even fewer care about Jeff Flake, I'll pretend - for the moment - that they'd have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, if only Ron Paul weren't so damned overwhelmingly popular with libertarian conservatives!!!

...

Michael Kazin - Professor of History, Georgetown, co-editor Dissent:


What he's actually saying:


"Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP" in that establishment members of his party are greatly troubled by a member who holds consistent principles through thick and thin. An honest statesman that can't be bribed is in such sharp contrast to those surrounding him, that it starkly reveals their own hypocrisy. Such figures are marginalized, subtlety, and often not so subtlety. Paul has more dedicated supporters though, and raises a lot more money.

Paul has integrity. I'm somewhat hazy on his stances, erroneously believing that he plans to put us back on a gold standard and assuming that his insistence on addressing federal programs like Medicare and Social Security must mean he would simply eliminate them, cutting off those who depend on them - without even a thought! I don't know why I would make such a ridiculous assumption! :confused: I really should look into his statements to get a more in-depth grasp of how one might reduce spending without harming our most vulnerable citizens! I guess I'm just repeating what I hear everyone els say. The establishment does not want Ron Paul to win.
...


Pete Bruscoe Adjunct Lecturer, American University:


His argument:

I like Trump.
"You're fired!"
Funny! Huh, huh!
http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/can-ron-paul-trump-critics-in-2012.html#B9A461B4-B786-4B6C-97F7-A49A3513C58B