The Ron Paul Thread

[RussellK]

Go to trends.google.com and search on Ron Paul and then search on Barack Obama and unless I am reading it wrong, they look to be fairly equal.

Isn't that a reporting tool on searches?

[spiffy]

Or a searching tool on reports?

[chitwnvw]

Yes it displays the number of searches vs. the number of instances mentioned in the media. And while I am not going to say that RP has as many supporters as BO, it is interesting to see that the number of times people have searched on his name is on par. Contrast that information with the way each was presented in the media. Barack was presented as a legitimate contender, while Ron was presented, if he was presented at all, as someone who didn't have a chance to win. Most people, logically, don't want to waste their votes, we will vote for one of the top two or three who actually might be able to win. So in a way, the media decided RP couldn't win and so it was made to be true.

[RussellK]

In order for it to be scientific you have to factor in how many of those searches were Steve's.

[steve74baywin]

That is today,,,6 months ago and 9 months ago Ron Paul was searched more, he won almost all polls...
Like you say Russel about image, except this is just one more fine example of the influence of TV...Ron Paul was projected with a bad image from the very beginning even when he had more supporters than anyone, the media was like WTF, we the media determine who you sheep people will root for, we pick the choices, get this Ron Paul joke guy out of hear.
Oops, I did it again dam it, how on earth am I going to be able to show rock solid proof of that? Why is it again that I and only I must show rock solid proof? Oh, that's right, cause I am the only that isn't in lock step with the approved BS story.

[steve74baywin]

So where do we find Ron Paul numbers? I too would like to know how the numbers tack up against let's say Obama's record numbers of registrations and online contributions. Larry had a fair question Steve, so answer it head-on instead of throwing out "planks in your eyes" and "fairy tales." If you need to research to find the numbers, do it. It would be interesting.
Colin

I am not sure Larry had a fair question....
Look at what I posted and what he put in bold...

Thanks for posting Steve, I checked it out....
The Ron Paul Revolution is far bigger than Obama's, but, as we know, Ron Paul wasn't written into the script, hence only Obama's is the one in the show.... Ron Paul by far has more supporters, especially amongst those who actually are aware of the true reality of this political game.

Larry ask about polls....I did not say anything about polls.
In fact, look at what Larry made bold, Ron Paul by far has more supporters, especially amongst those who actually are aware of the true reality of this political game.
I said the Ron Paul Revolution is far bigger than Obama's, and it certainly was before the media made Obama, I am not going to research that, I was alive and witnessed it, I wasn't in church being programmed with BS.
Also, I said he had far more supporters, especially amongst those who actually are aware of this political game.
This one may be hard to prove, we would have to poll sites of people who are aware of this smoke and mirror show and see if there for Obama or Paul..... I'm pretty certain that amongst those who believe this system is rigged and controlled by those who SAID THEY WERE GOING TO CONTROL THE MEDIA that they far and large are for Ron Paul and not Obama.

[Amskeptic]

I said the Ron Paul Revolution is far bigger than Obama's, and it certainly was before the media made Obama,
I said he had far more supporters, especially amongst those who actually are aware of this political game.
This one may be hard to prove, we would have to poll sites of people who are aware of this smoke and mirror show and see if there for Obama or Paul..... I'm pretty certain that amongst those who believe this system is rigged and controlled by those who SAID THEY WERE GOING TO CONTROL THE MEDIA that they far and large are for Ron Paul and not Obama.

So look at the fundraising numbers, amounts per contribution, hits on their respective sites. Obama was NOT made by the media, are you kidding, he is being chewed up with this pathetic Reverend Wright tempest and the "bitter people" in Pennsylvania nonsense, and ABC was was just totally retarded with their asinine questions. Perhaps Obama really is inspiring people's hopes? Ya think, Steve? The guy has pulled in a remarkable amount of and number of contributions. What are Ron Paul's numbers? So we can get a grasp of the phenomena you speak of.
Colin

[chitwnvw]

So look at the fundraising numbers, amounts per contribution, hits on their respective sites. Obama was NOT made by the media, are you kidding, he is being chewed up with this pathetic Reverend Wright tempest and the "bitter people" in Pennsylvania nonsense, and ABC was was just totally retarded with their asinine questions. Perhaps Obama really is inspiring people's hopes? Ya think, Steve? The guy has pulled in a remarkable amount of and number of contributions. What are Ron Paul's numbers? So we can get a grasp of the phenomena you speak of.
Colin

Ron Paul raised 34 million. I think he was more popular than the media portrayed him as being, I think trends.google.com proves this. He's a craggy looking old man, some of his idea are suspect, and corporate America would crap their pant if he got elected.

Obama is recently receiving the work over from the media, but early on, when we pick out the few candidates that are taken seriously, he wasn't. He was a dynamic energizing candidate that excited a lot of people, but that gets boring after awhile. So we (the media, America en masse) start looking for a story, a flaw. America loves it's underdogs, but despises it's champions.

[Quadratrückseite]

Yesterday I voted for Ron Paul in the North Carolina primary. He ended up with 40,275 votes, which was 8%. McCain, interestingly, only got 74% - 26% voted for someone else in his own party. I think he's going to have some problems in November. I won't be voting for McCain.
What I was most happy about yesterday was the local guy I talked about (B.J. Lawson) who was running on a Ron Paul like platform. He won resoundingly, 71% (24,410 votes) to 29% (10,110). Now he'll be going against a strong Democrat incumbent in November, but I have hope.

[Velokid1]

[steve74baywin]

So look at the fundraising numbers, amounts per contribution, hits on their respective sites. Obama was NOT made by the media, are you kidding, he is being chewed up with this pathetic Reverend Wright tempest and the "bitter people" in Pennsylvania nonsense, and ABC was was just totally retarded with their asinine questions. Perhaps Obama really is inspiring people's hopes? Ya think, Steve? The guy has pulled in a remarkable amount of and number of contributions. What are Ron Paul's numbers? So we can get a grasp of the phenomena you speak of.
Colin

Ron Paul raised 34 million. I think he was more popular than the media portrayed him as being, I think trends.google.com proves this. He's a craggy looking old man, some of his idea are suspect, and corporate America would crap their pant if he got elected.

Obama is recently receiving the work over from the media, but early on, when we pick out the few candidates that are taken seriously, he wasn't. He was a dynamic energizing candidate that excited a lot of people, but that gets boring after awhile. So we (the media, America en masse) start looking for a story, a flaw. America loves it's underdogs, but despises it's champions.

Also last year I recall several polls the cable networks set up on their websites that had Ron Paul ahead by a land slide....They kept saying, and even had a few discussion about it....Saying stuff like, Ron Paul has a huge internet following....They were trying to make it out like the internet was a weird sampling of people...like a bunch of bikers, or hippies or something...People from all walks of life use the internet, old, young, rich...The internet is a good sampling of the people in this country....
The news media is used to presenting the candidates to us, not the other way around...
Disclaimer, I can not provide proof positive on anything I say.

The man from now where becomes a household name..

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11 ... s_ris.html

Sweet column: Behind Obama's rise, massive positive press.


WASHINGTON -- The presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was launched with the help of more positive press coverage than any other candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- running for the White House.

"While Hillary Clinton may have gotten the most press, she did not get the most favorable. That distinction, among major candidates, went to Barack Obama." That's a conclusion of a study conducted by Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics & Public Policy with the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study of 1,742 stories on the 2008 primary running between January and May of this year included reports in newspapers, online, network TV, cable news and liberal and conservative talk radio. The findings help explain a component of the Obama phenomena -- how a lawmaker with two years in the Senate within a matter of months became a front-running White House contender.

Obama's quick rise in national politics has been assisted by massive, mostly favorable coverage since the summer of 2004. Obama has even escaped being targeted in a negative television commercial. What's interesting about this study is that for the first time, the extent of the Obama upbeat coverage has been quantified.

Some findings:

• • Obama had the most positive tone of coverage, 46.7 percent compared with chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) at 26.9 percent; Republicans Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, at 27.8 percent; and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at 12.4 percent.

• • While Obama was second to Clinton in coverage, his favorable treatment came from influential media. Newspaper stories were 70 percent positive; network morning news shows 58 percent positive and network evening news 55 percent positive.

• • Talk radio shows -- liberal and conservative -- provided negative coverage of Clinton.

On conservative shows, Clinton's negative score was 86 percent compared with 55.6 for Obama and 80 for former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).

On liberal shows, Obama and Edwards scored 100 percent positive coverage compared with 16.7 percent for Clinton.

• • Obama's campaign benefitted from an extended honeymoon that is ending. The soaring trajectory has been drifting downward so that "by May, there were signs of trouble. The coverage had become far more neutral, with positive stories and negative more equally divided."

[upnorthman]

Anyone catch the interview today? I only caught the end and heard him say that there is no difference between the dem. and rep. parties with respect to the front runners and their policies or something like that. Basically no difference between Obama and McSain and their policies. Interesting, when I have time and I'm not re-installing my alternator in small increments I'll have to listen to the whole interview.

Here is a link to a mp3 of it:
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/index.html#new
It is 31 min long.

[chitwnvw]

Obama was NOT made by the media, are you kidding, he is being chewed up with this pathetic Reverend Wright tempest and the "bitter people" in Pennsylvania nonsense, and ABC was was just totally retarded with their asinine questions.
Colin

And he's survived this, rather robustly, don't you think?

[LiveonJG]

Obama was NOT made by the media, are you kidding, he is being chewed up with this pathetic Reverend Wright tempest and the "bitter people" in Pennsylvania nonsense, and ABC was was just totally retarded with their asinine questions.
Colin

And he's survived this, rather robustly, don't you think?

Yes he has. Don't forget the lapel pin. A little American flag made in China is the ultimate display of patriotism.

-John

[chitwnvw]

Don't forget the lapel pin. A little American flag made in China is the ultimate display of patriotism.
-John

Yes. Yes, it is.