Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why does the media act like Ron Paul does not exist?
Even when Ron Paul comes in first or second in a straw poll, his name is rarely mentioned.
Even when Ron Paul wins online poll after online poll, his name is rarely mentioned.
Even when people phone in who they think won a debate, his name is only barely spoken of. This is absurd.
On news programs, outside of debates, he's never mentioned. For example, take Sean Hannity's program. Last night, he had pictures of candidates, and who did he include: Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Cain. Ron Paul has polled higher than the last three.
It makes no sense to not speak of the man, and this is going for all networks. Why is there a collective effort to silence this man, when he has been the most strident with defending the constitution in our congress? Why have they done this every time he runs for office, despite the fact that the people like what he has to say. It's only that the media tries to make it where as few people as possible know his name or his views.
He's never called a "front runner". Why? What makes Perry or Romney "Front Runners"? Could it be possible that is who the media likes?
I use twitter to get news updates and I am getting allot of him on my twitter feed and on facebook. Jeff Katz had a very interesting article on Paul and how he wants to pull military bases out of foreign nations.
Personally I think the man has a great idea for auditing the fed but on foreign policy he chooses to bury his head in the sand. He would not make a well rounded president.
Because he's too radical to ever actually win a majority vote.
This said, I really hope he manages to be the Ralph Nader of the right this next election and sinks it for the democrats.
He is not too "radical". There's nothing radical about his views. What I find radical is someone thinking that we need to go into every third world country that doesn't subscribe to our way of thinking and send in troops. That is radical.
By the way, if the public were given enough information about him, meaning that the media would talk about him as much as the "front runner" candidates, he'd win in a land slide. Liberty and Freedom are popular, not state health care (Romney) or tuition for illegals (Perry).
The smartest ones on the stage were Paul and Gingrich. However, Bachmann has some good views, as does Santorum. The latter, I simply dislike his warhawk mentality. Cain is also a little too war hawk, and he worked for the federal reserve, not to mention he favored the bail outs. He has good economic points, however. Gingrich has stated that he's not so sure about our foreign militaristic presence any longer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
