[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So you are saying that people will vote based on superficial criteria and not consider what might actually be good for them?[/quote]
What I am saying, and what history has proven, is that the majority of Americans will first be either turned on, or turned off by what the candidate looks like and how he sounds. They will then however rationalize their need to like that specific candidate by then agreeing with what he has to say. This is not at all how you think so your first reaction is probably to dismiss it, however that would be a foolish thing to do as most people operate in this fashion.
I’m sorry to have to break that to you my friend. But that’s the way it has been since the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Those who watched it thought Kennedy won. Those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon got the better of Kennedy. Naturally Kennedy being the better looking most charismatic candidate won on TV.
It is now a fact of life. And the primary reason why Ron Paul will never become President and in fact has no chance of becoming the nominee.
If you’re interested I’d love to recommend a few really good books on the topic. They would be an eye opener to you and the other Paul supporters. What you guys need is someone who sings Paul’s tune but looks like Obama or Romney. And that man, at least right now, does not exist.
Pssst! Infowars = Alex Jones = Batshit. Are you batshit also?
[/quote]
even crazy people can bring up valid facts. Sorry but Perry did try to use eminent domain to take land from farmers to support a monopoly run toll road, that is fact. But luckily it was shot down.
And he did raise taxes on businesses, that is a fact.
yeah sounds like a real conservative to me.[/quote]
Who is your candidate to unseat Obama? Or do you worship at the chosen one’s feet?[/quote]
I would like to see paul ryan or chris christie, don’t know how likely that is though. and maybe pull in allen west for vp.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So you are saying that people will vote based on superficial criteria and not consider what might actually be good for them?[/quote]
What I am saying, and what history has proven, is that the majority of Americans will first be either turned on, or turned off by what the candidate looks like and how he sounds. They will then however rationalize their need to like that specific candidate by then agreeing with what he has to say. This is not at all how you think so your first reaction is probably to dismiss it, however that would be a foolish thing to do as most people operate in this fashion.
I’m sorry to have to break that to you my friend. But that’s the way it has been since the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Those who watched it thought Kennedy won. Those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon got the better of Kennedy. Naturally Kennedy being the better looking most charismatic candidate won on TV.
It is now a fact of life. And the primary reason why Ron Paul will never become President and in fact has no chance of becoming the nominee.
If you’re interested I’d love to recommend a few really good books on the topic. They would be an eye opener to you and the other Paul supporters. What you guys need is someone who sings Paul’s tune but looks like Obama or Romney. And that man, at least right now, does not exist.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So you are saying that people will vote based on superficial criteria and not consider what might actually be good for them?[/quote]
What I am saying, and what history has proven, is that the majority of Americans will first be either turned on, or turned off by what the candidate looks like and how he sounds. They will then however rationalize their need to like that specific candidate by then agreeing with what he has to say. This is not at all how you think so your first reaction is probably to dismiss it, however that would be a foolish thing to do as most people operate in this fashion.
I’m sorry to have to break that to you my friend. But that’s the way it has been since the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Those who watched it thought Kennedy won. Those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon got the better of Kennedy. Naturally Kennedy being the better looking most charismatic candidate won on TV.
It is now a fact of life. And the primary reason why Ron Paul will never become President and in fact has no chance of becoming the nominee.
If you’re interested I’d love to recommend a few really good books on the topic. They would be an eye opener to you and the other Paul supporters. What you guys need is someone who sings Paul’s tune but looks like Obama or Romney. And that man, at least right now, does not exist.
'He very passionately took on Perry for his comments on Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. “I am not in agreement with Ben Bernanke,” he began. “But having a presidential candidate calling [a policy disagreement] treason is shockingly maladroit. Maybe he can get away with that in Austin, but we’re not in Austin anymore. Bernanke has made some bad decisions but these are public policy decisions. To say that is treasonous is what gets you into John Conyers language,” he said referring to the Michigan congressman who threatened to impeach President George W. Bush. “I reject that. He should take two steps back and say it was a mistake. He should apologize.”
He also had critical words for Perry and others who have elevated the 10th Amendment to a sort of cult. He told me, “Like I said in the debate, this is the 10th Amendment run amok.” He pointed to a list of items on which states aren’t or shouldn’t be allowed to act as they please. “Rick Perry can talk about secession that’s not what the 10th Amendment says,” he told me. He reiterated that the 10th Amendment reserves some rights to the states but warned that they cannot violate “what is clearly laid out in the Constitution” and should not be violating “fundamental values.”
Santorum on Iran, national security and Ron Paul:
Most voters are unfamiliar with Santorum’s record. During our conversation he made the case that he was ahead of the curve on both entitlement reform and Iran sanctions (over the protests of the Bush administration, he recalled). On Iran, he is especially harsh in his condemnation of what he saw as efforts to ignore or lie about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. "They ostensibly didn’t want George W. Bush to act on available intelligence, he argued. Concern about what he perceived as the ‘gathering storm[1] of the 21st century’ animated his final years in the Senate and his work since, and remains, he said, “a passion of mine.” His concern is that the GOP has learned the wrong lesson and could go Ron Paul on national security issues. He expressed frustration that there has been “no conversation about this” in the race.’
[1] The Gathering Storm vol 1 of The History of the Second World War by Sir Winston S Churchill - How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm.
I have to give Paul credit however, he knows that the only demographic he attracts in any serious numbers are male 20 somethings. So here he is trying to attact women:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think you are mistaken that 20 somethings are all he attracts. Keep saying it if it makes you feel better.
That poll could have been held in his district. It could have been yet one more example of Paul supporters stuffing the ballot box like they did at the Republican conference. And do in just about every call in poll. I’ve always said that his group of followers are very zealous. Either way it is insignificant as only 800 people took part.
He won CPAC by stuffing the crowd full of his supporters:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have to give Paul credit however, he knows that the only demographic he attracts in any serious numbers are male 20 somethings. So here he is trying to attact women:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So you are saying that people will vote based on superficial criteria and not consider what might actually be good for them?
I am hoping the idiot liberals’ bleeding hearts will help them see how fake Obama is compared to the good doctor.[/quote]
I find it amusing when the Paulites complain about ‘the liberals’ in light of the fact that RP is running on the same liberal platform as George McGovern in 1972 - i.e. pro-drugs/anti-war.
Okay, so the CIA has been involved in some shady stuff but they don’t ‘run everything’ and ‘run the military’. That’s crazy talk. Also, neither you, I nor Ron Paul has any reason whatsoever to believe that the CIA is involved in ‘drug businesses’.[/quote]
Okay, so the CIA has been involved in some shady stuff but they don’t ‘run everything’ and ‘run the military’. That’s crazy talk. Also, neither you, I nor Ron Paul has any reason whatsoever to believe that the CIA is involved in ‘drug businesses’.[/quote]
[/quote]
It’s a bill moyers special from 1987 that aired on PBS. That is the administration after they guy you posted was speaking. It is fair and concise reporting of the facts, something rarely seen in todayâ??s media.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Bill Moyers? PBS? Doesn’t the Reagan worship suggest to you that I’m not interested in that liberal horseshit?[/quote]
Lol. He’s no Glen Beck, or Rush that’s for sure…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Bill Moyers? PBS? Doesn’t the Reagan worship suggest to you that I’m not interested in that liberal horseshit?[/quote]
Lol. He’s no Glen Beck, or Rush that’s for sure… [/quote]
Glenn Beck came out with a load of batshit about FEMA camps then recanted it. He also says positive things about Ron Paul.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have to give Paul credit however, he knows that the only demographic he attracts in any serious numbers are male 20 somethings. So here he is trying to attact women:
And Obama’s going all out for the gay vote again.[/quote]
All kidding aside he has the gay vote locked up. That’s why i laugh when Mufasa says that if Romney gets the nomination the Christian right will stay home, or actually vote for Obama because Romney is a Mormon. Obama has been for every far left idea that’s come down the pike from gay marriage to higher taxes, to more regulation. And he’s also been taped mocking the Bible. Yeah, just the type of candidate that the Christian right wants to give four more years to.
