Why did Ron Paul loose ?

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by OutCaste, Jul 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OutCaste

    OutCaste Well-Known Member

    I disagreed with Ron Paul in many of things what he says. But he had very important and honest points to make, and the press had ignored them completely. Why did he loose when it seemed like a lot of people were behind him ? Do you feel media was a little biased in giving hillary, obama and mccain more coverage ? Why do so many people think Ron Paul is a lunatic ?
     
  2. saint6

    saint6 Well-Known Member

    because he went against most of the governments ideas and plans, he was into freedom and rights. they wont elect someone like that, no matter how many supporters they have.
     
  3. OutCaste

    OutCaste Well-Known Member

    Do you mean those elections were rigged ?
     
  4. hammockmonkey

    hammockmonkey Well-Known Member

    the elections are rigged in the sense that the government does not want any sort of "extremist" positions to be electable. This is the stated purpose of the electoral college.
     
  5. anonymous51

    anonymous51 Staff Alumni

    Its simple really. The candidates get votes by getting publicity and advertisement, which comes from money from powerful companies and firms (which is why Bush won the last elecion, he was the chairman of one of the biggest oil companies in America.) Now these powerful people will only give money to people who are going to let them make the rich people richer.
     
  6. Darken

    Darken Well-Known Member

    Elections are rigged. The candidates the elite wanted to win are winning, another clinton/socialist globalist(obama) and versus another neocon like bush(mccain) basically and ron paul wasn't treated fairly. He raised a ton of money, actually more than any other republican the first few months or maybe completely. Also won many polls until they started to marginalize him and take his name off polls, didn't let him into the debates and other cheap biased crap. My sister went to vote for him and they didn't even have him on the list of candidates wtf?! Mccain might have raised more money but you know its not from the people like ron pauls funds, his are from special interests and the elite, illuminati, secret society network or what ever else you'd like to call them. The people that profit from wars. We are losing freedoms all the time now, turning into a fascist police state. If ron paul was elected it would totally set back their plans and many years of work, maybe even ruin them, because he is pretty much the opposite. Prorights, profreedom, constitutionalist, wants limited government, no war, prosovereignty/border control etcetera. He is like a living founding father imo. To say his ideas are extreme or crazy is a slap to the face of america because our country was based on the ideas that he supports. Why do all the other republicans support war? I also liked dennis kucinich a lot and the media marginalized him too.
     
  7. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure if its more sad that they basically are corporate puppets or that the general public is incapable of seeing past and voting for alternate candidates.
     
  8. fromthatshow

    fromthatshow Staff Alumni

    Pretty much what everyone else said.
    It's rigged.
     
  9. OutCaste

    OutCaste Well-Known Member

    Yeah I am thinking the same.

    It seems to me that media hyped the worst candidates out of the 15. Now its quite likely that Obama is going to win because there is a media bias for sure in Obama's coverage (Keep in mind I don't support McCain or Obama). Honestly, there are a lot of things about Obama that scare me :

    1. Obama is no different in logic than McCain with regards to Middle East, covered with gold it may be. His war mongering would place American forces within Pakistan (a nation armed with 95 nukes and a decent army) and appreciate war within Afghanistan. Pakistan will start a whole new war much more deadly than the one in Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama has not ruled out military force against Iran either. Obama has continued to vote to fund the war 3 times and in June 2006, he voted against a bill that would have withdrawn the troops within a year. How do so many people miss such an important fact while claiming that he is anti war ? Like I said earlier, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, however, I would swing my vote his way instead of McCAin or Obama. At the least, Ron Paul understands the horror of appreciating this horrible War on Terror, and the overall nonsense war-mongering brings. McCain even jokes about killing people.

    2. Obama seems to me like a charlatan (many have pointed this out). What is this change he keeps talking about ? I don't support McCain but I agree with him when he said it makes far more sense to go to Europe after being elected rather than before. This guy thinks he has already won the elections and is some sort of a king.

    3. Obama supporters freak me out. They follow him like blind sheeps without questioning anything and acceptinge verything he says like a gospel. If Obama wins, the Race baiters will be out in full force for at least four years. Obama's supporters have consistently accused anyone who is critical of Obama of being a racist. This is truely pathetic and I have witnessed this on almost every forum. One of the ways his camp is trying to shore up support is to imply that if you don't vote for him, it is because you're a racist. Of course, that is pure bullshit. Typical gun totting/blackmailing behaviour. Tons of people are voting for him solely because of his race. Why not point their hypocricy too while you are at it. Did it ever occur to his supporters that people dislike him because of his values or may be his economic policies ? Also, Obama is not a true Black man. He's a Mulatto and a mixed race person in the eyes of the entire world. How can you hate a man of multiple races for his race ? What the fuck is his "race" ? Interestingly, the Americans who want to cling to that ridiculous one drop rule are either White supremacists or Black Supremacists for their own reasons. I debated with such people online and I find their opinions extremely diseased. They are not sane. Yet, this is rather interesting because his democratic supporters are holding on to Obama's African ancestory for wrong reasons (Same reason for downplaying his mother's ancestory) rather than being honest and admitting that Obama is a man of multiple races. Obama and his camp as extremely shrewd for protraying him as a Black man which he is not. Those who try to make race a fundamental issue of American society are the real trouble makers and there are plenty of such trouble makers in Obama's camp. These people are not helping us create a color blind society but rather the exact opposite where everyone's skin color is scrutinized all the time.

    4. Look at Obama's inner circle. He goes to a Black supremacist church and considers a racist like Rev. Wright a close confident. Later we see Obama openly denounced Wright's comments. Yeah, you surround yourself with a bunch of scumbags and deny knowing them when they get caught doing or saying something. A lot of criminals also do that. Why would you even associate with people who's ideas or activities you don't agree with or share. It just doesn't make sense. This is why Obama is a obnoxious liar, he considered this guy a "mentor" and was in fact married to his wife by him. How could he not know this guy's racist views or share such views after 20 damn years ? He also claims that Wright has been a pastor for decades and that he has not attended every sermon. In other words, Obama claims that not all of Wright's sermons are like this, and that Obama supposedly missed the ones where he was damning the entire Caucasian race and America. :unsure:

    If McCain had worked to run a White Nationalist rally, I suspect that most people would consider such an event a viable issue. Afterall, you are known by the company you keep. Ron paul's campaign was destroyed because he associated with Don Black and David Duke (I am not sure how much truth there is in this bit of news but it was widely popular). Why should Obama's Racist past get a free pass then ? There should be equal criticism against Obama. Not only this, Obama has also been associated with Farrakhan, Rev. Sharpton, Senator Meeks - all of whom are well known racists. His own wife is a suspicious character. People need to realize that if we really want to end racism and build a healthy society for everyone, we need to stop trying to downplay/deny or whitewash racism from those who are of non European descendent. Seriously, some people OD on it. People of any race can be incredibly racist against others. IT is possible for people of the same race to discriminate against each other based on varying skin tones. History (both and recent) proves it. If you think only Whites or some race X is racist, then it means you have double standards. I'm not even White/European (I'm Asian btw) and I truely believe in this.


    5. Take a look at Obama's accomplishments and stratergies. What exactly has he done to establish competence in anything ? Are we supposed to believe that he is a messiah just because of his eloquent public speeches ? His resume pales in comparison with Ron Paul's. Look up on Wikipedia and you can easily tell who is more accomplished/dedicated. Hell, even Bobby Jindal's(A novice in politics) resume is stronger than Obama. Obama's economic policies have been crticised a lot. This one being the most recent:

    "Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession"

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    A lot of people pointed out that he is a Marxist. The main influences in his life are Marxists. His associations while starting up in politics were Marxists. He wants a classless society and wants to elevate the lower class by bringing down the upper class. That line of thinking is rooted in Karl Marx's philosophy. Not saying I am against his right to believe in it but its also a fact that Robin Hood economics do not work in real life. And we all know how communist societies end up.

    Its a must that we analyse the past of presidential candidates, if this little exercise was done 8 years ago then the moronic and retarded Bush would never have been elected twice. This kind of decision affects the entire world and not just America. Obama's background wasn't known when he ran for the Senate, but he is now being put under a microscope and that's how it should be. I'm hoping whoever is elected doesn't get a second term and Americans have much better candidates to choose from the next time.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2008
  10. nedflanders

    nedflanders Well-Known Member

    Ron Paul lost because other people got far more votes than he did. It wasn't even close.

    Sure, the media are biased--American reporters and editors are overwhelmingly Democrats. But your question is a little weird. Giving more or less coverage to Hillary or Obama was entirely irrelevant to Ron Paul, because Ron Paul was running in the Republican primary.

    Probably because so many of his followers are lunatics. If you don't believe me, just take a look at how popular he was around suicideforum. Suicideforum, in case you hadn't noticed, is chock full of lunatics.
     
  11. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Ron Paul lost because he never had a chance to start with. Some of his ideas were just nuts and (frankly) frightening to Democrats and Republicans alike. Even some people who supported him freely admitted that some of his philosophies and ideas were truly crazy. Of course he had some good points or he'd have never gotten any support at all. But there comes a point when you can't overlook everything else for a few good points.

    Of course politics is a filthy game and everyone is biased. The media is no different. That's just the way the game is played. But if a Ron Paul is elected in this country at any time in the next 20 years (at least), I'd be very surprised.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.