Comments on: Ron Paul: Money Isn't Everything

By: Devin Mork

Devin Mork — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:15:29 +0000

Remember, the media that we watch are subsidiaries of larger media conglomerates. News Corp., Disney, and others are publicly traded. Anybody can buy up their shares and become the boss. In this country, if you know the right executive bankers, you can get the Federal Reserve to print and loan you money at 0% interest which you could turn and invest wherever you please.

Ron Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve System. The journalists themselves might not be that biased, but the information they’re fed is ultimately under the scrutiny of their stockholders. They won’t promote a message that the boss doesn’t like, and the boss does not like it when U.S. Dollars don’t flow directly into his pocketbook.

By: Biff

Biff — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:32:20 +0000

I agree that Paul can not, and will not win his parties nomination. I do however support his stance on the war. I think he would have a much better shot as a right leaning democrat or independant though. Our political system (either party) is in league with big money to such a great extent, that someone with an unorthodox thought (especially one that goes against the privitization of public funds) does not have a chance. If you look across the field of candidates, you will see at least a begrudging support of the war, at least anyone who is being covered. The objective is an old one, “the shell game” and “the lesser of 2 or 6 evils” in an attempt to maintain the status quo. I also see some hope for the future of the internet, but I fear that as it’s power increases, so too will the power of the monopolies that will inevidably steer the traffic. “The last bastion of free speech” will unfortunatly probably not last forever.
I would also have to agree with Michael about the outcome of our withdrawl. It would be painful and the loss of life would be great (considering even 1 needless death is too many). This will happen whenever we leave, regardless, unless we have a stronger government in place than the previous one. Which would be terrible for me to even think about. There would eventually be an end to it though. People do usually conform when facing insurmountable odds. I know this is a touchy subject with you Trevin, and that you have personal issues as well. I just wonder if you can square this stance with the Red Letters.
I have enjoyed reading through your site and I look forward to reading your book as soon as I get a chance. Sorry about the spelling…

By: Vince

Vince — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:15:14 +0000

I agree that he is ignored, but I think he will end up running as an independent and doing significantly better than Ross Perot did. He could even win. At the very least, this election will be a wake up call to the media regarding the true power of the internet…the last bastion of free speech media.

By: coldfire

coldfire — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:24:35 +0000

I agree with you, but I would also remind readers here that the internet ha become more and more important with each passing election. I am of the view that the internet will overtake the television within the next twenty years (and then apple will run the world). So we must be careful how quickly we dismiss Ron Paul (although I agree his chances are slim).

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:16:27 +0000

Hi Trevin, I disagree with you because I think Ron Paul can actually win. I also think you should re-consider and vote for him because his views on the Iraq war make sense and the thing that would be most just for us to do right now would be to pull out of Iraq as he says. Here’s why:

The British have pulled out of the cities of Southern Iraq completely to a small base at the airport and violence in that part of the country has dropped down to near-zero and British troops are no longer being attacked as much as before.
When Reagan told the US Marines to pull out of Lebanon because we were being attacked left, right & centre by suicide-bombers and insurgents, the violence in Lebanon dropped significantly and suicide bombings particularly stopped overnight.

We prolonged the Vietnam war and lost 68,000 men because we did not want to leave thinking our withdrawal would do more harm than good to innocent Vietnamese. However, when we pulled out, there was a period of violence as a clamour for power erupted but Vietnam is now largely a peaceful nation, they trade and talk with us and they are rapidly becoming westernised. So they aren’t a perfect democratic state yet (who is), but they’re getting there and we’ve achieved more in peace and non-intervention in their internal affairs than we did in a bloody pre-emptive war with them.

The reason we’re being attacked over there and the reason for suicide bombings and the violence in Iraq is because of our occupation of the country. They see us as the enemies occupying their land, building permanent bases and plotting to take over their oil (which is true). Think of how Americans would react if the Chinese came over here and occupied our country, started dividing up our assets and giving Chinese companies oil contracts, imposing their way of life and form of government on us and killing our wives and children as a result of collateral damage from targeting Americans (or insurgents in MSM-speak) who were reacting to the Chinese occupation and defending their homes and families. I daresay all of us would exercise our 2nd ammendment rights and shoot the heck out of them.

And this is what Ron Paul is about: non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations and trading, and talking with them and visiting and spreading our values this way rather than invading and bombing countries we don’t happen to agree with. Consider that the Soviets had 40,000 nuclear weapons arraigned against us but we were able to dismantle the Soviet empire by standing tough and talking with them, westernising them through trade but not by invading them and forcing our values on them.

Ron Paul can win, here’s why:

He’s polling at between 8% & 13% in the “major polls” behind Romney, Rudy and Huckabee (in a couple of states) but you have to realize a number of factors are at play:

1) Even with his relatively low polling numbers, he’s on an upward trajectory coming from 2% at the start of his campaign and doubling up to 4%, 8% and now touching 13% in some states. So his numbers will only continue to rise.

2) Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were polling even lower than Ron Paul is polling right now and both went on to win their parties nominations and the Presidency.

3) These so-called “major polls” are not truly representative of Ron Paul’s support because they don’t poll ppl with cell-phones (a lot of Ron Paul’s supporters use cell-phones); they usually only poll out of a pool of Republicans who voted in the 2004 elections but these are now a very small, shrinking base of the overall Republican party and Ron Paul also attracts a lot of support from cross-over Democrats, Libertarians and Independents who just wouldn’t get polled.

4) In straw polls (which are a better indication of a candidate’s support because people actually have to turn up and vote), Ron Paul is doing spectacularly well. He has a winning record against all the other Republican candidates and he has come first in 29 out of the 52 straw polls, and 2nd and 3rd in another seven straw polls each, so that’s a top three finish in 43 out of 52 straw polls — those are winning numbers right there.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

5) Finally, he’s got the money to go all the way; all raised from grassroots supporters and not from corporate or special interests. 70% of donors to his campaign in the past week were new donors so he’s also attracting an increasing number of new supporters and this will only continue as the primaries approach.

I see many good reasons to support Ron Paul and very few reasons to support any other Presidential candidate — Republican or Democrat. So I hope you reconsider your stance and join the Ron Paul revolution.

Michael

http://www.ronpaul2008.com