Philosophy Now Forum

I wonder why Fox News ignores this guy completely?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xeii0QW ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahjtqBis ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5rNlTrN ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhk ... ure=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPuJQaIg ... re=related

Because he has no chance of winning?

Since when has the news been in the job of deciding who's going to win or not?
Should they not be reporting on all the candidates until they drop out?
In the interests of democracy and all that.

Since they got in to the news business. The media isn't in the business of covering stories that relatively few people are interested in.

That said, Paul has been around awhile, and has received plenty of coverage for us to understand what he's about. As example, you know what he's about, and you don't even live here.

People have seen Ron Paul, most have found him wanting, realize he won't win, and so turn their attention elsewhere.

Funnily enough we have the BBC to say different. But then it is what you'd consider to be a pinko institution as its not run for profit but paid for by a licence fee.
We have the BBC and the Internet helps. But its when the media can't block him, i.e. the GOP debates, that he raelly comes to the attention over here. If one is interested that is.I think you mean that the GOP won't ever let him become the candidate as he actually stands for what they purport to believe in.

See that figure from donations by the serving military to the GOP candidates, total of all the candidates except R. Paul, approx $9,000, R. Paul $36,000, 71% of donations. The grunt appears to like what he says but then they've had travel to broaden the mind I guess.

No, I think typist means that that most American's don't think Paul looks presidential or commands a certain type of respect that is needed in order for the American people to think he is strong enough to lead. In my way of seeing things...no man or woman could become president of the USA if he appeared 'weak', no matter what his message. It could be Jesus Christ himself and they still wouldn't vote for him if he didn't command a certain presence. Most republicans (and many democrats) are shallow in this respect. Looks and mannerism are usually more important than substance when it comes to who they pick to lead them astray. A perfect example in two words ...Sarah Palin (who in my eyes is interchangeable with any of the following: michele Bachman, george Bush, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, et al and yes...even the latest...Chris Christie....only because he commands a presence of leadership in their eyes yet no one even knows what he stands for yet..and still they rally around him....in that ostrich with his head in the sand/What I don't know can't hurt me Mentality! Amazing.


But what I can't understand is why, if you think Ron Paul stands for what the GOP believe in......why do you say you like him? I thought you were anti right wing politics?

Or maybe they've got less problems with the accusations of overt racism that he's tried to shake off.

You mean he's not a warmonger and looks like an old man.

Not per se and theres little I like about the right but in his case, and viewing from the outside, he appears a lot more like what I used to think Americans believed in. In all the clips I've watched he pretty much owns his opponents and commentators on the issues of international relations and Americas economics. So if he got in I think it would help focus Europe in a big way about its own responsibilties towards defense and international relations and obligations. Not sure most would like it tho'.

I'm just amazed that the 'news' over there is allowed to ignore him so easily, given that he is a runner in the GOP elections.

There's a lot of blacks in the US Army. Although I doubt he's actually racist towards black people. Reading about and listening to him its that he's an old style US libertarian so he thought it wrong to pass laws affecting private ownership but thought that the issues could have been dealt with under the idea of being unconstitutional but I haven't done any vast research upon this matter.

Hi AS!



I know what you mean. But for me, I have no problem with how Paul looks, speaks or carries himself etc. I just think he's too far off in one direction to be able to lead the country effectively. He would send his proposals to Congress, and they would laugh and send them back. Nothing would get done.



Ah, be careful about lumping Christie in to that group, imho. I agree the others often look and act like cartoon characters, but Christie is different. From what I've seen so far anyway. As example, he's the only one of that group that could actually beat Obama.



He's a classic Republican governor, with a real talent for straight talk, something that's been sorely lacking. His personal presence is actually that of guy who is way too fat, a reality he very frankly comments on himself.

I don't think he'll run, as he's already said too many times he won't. If he were to run now, he'd flush his straight talk brand down the toilet.

Watch for him next time up, when there's no incumbent to run against. Christie is a smart fellow, and that's the smart move.

He may not be racist but he should be more careful about what he lets others put out in his name then.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/15/335036/-Ron-Paul,-In-His-Own-Words

Ron Paul makes the other candidates look like fools. Too bad he comes across as gay, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think some people might hold it against him.