Jesse Benton: CBS treatment of Ron Paul DISGRACEFUL

No, just completely insignificant and irrelevant for the 90% of issues that have nothing to do with national defense. And even then, often quite wrong. Mexican War vets facilitated the Civil War and slaughtered the last of the Natives, and WWII vets buried us in Vietnam and probably single-handedly provoked state-sponsored Islamic terrorism.

 

Our veteran's views on national defense and foreign policy are "completely insignificant and irrelevant". Got it. Thank you.

 

Um, no Governor Palin; actually, you don't.

 

It's sad, really it is.

The GOP, after all the Tea Party and Occupy movements, are unable to change their core philosophies. I mean, they're propping up Newt freaking Gingrich now. They're continuing the exact philosophies that have helped lead to our problems.

The debates are a joke. They all say the same stuff with different wording. It's more of an advertisement. It's just a tad funny because GOP people from the past, like Goldwater, used to preach against aggressive interventionist foreign policy and most of the base was fine with that. If you dare do that nowadays, you get made fun of, called a nut, called un-American, and get ignored by the mainstream media.

These sorta things... This is why nobody likes the GOP!

 

Mmmm, champagne.

That being said, I hope Ron Paul makes some noise next year. I really do. Lets destroy the neo-GOP from the inside.

 

Joseph mama will now disprove the myth of paulista's obsessed fanbase by posting 19 times in a row.

 

No one denies that the Paul supporters, all 10% of them, are the most hardcore cohesive and sheeple-like of any supporters of any political candidate.

This cult-like fervent support tends to maximize his popular policies and minimize his nutjob policies and overstate his importance as a viable candidate for the other 90% of Americans.

 

So the original statement was that military veterans have given more to Ron Paul than anyone else, including Obama.

Of the links above, none deal with veterans. Two are from the 2008 campaign. Two actually say Obama has gotten more than Ron Paul. And, in total, we're talking about something in the neighborhood of $100,000 between ALL the candidates - compared to the tens of millions that they are raising.

Am I missing something?

 

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

 

The fact that veterans may donate money to Ron Paul to me, is really about as relevant to me as the fact that young people like Obama. Aka, I really don't give a crap.

You ARE talking about the Barry Goldwater who ran for President in 1964 while preaching about rollback, right?

 

You don't care to listen to war veterans about their first-hand experience with nation-building? You don't give a crap that they die for this stuff? Interesting.

 

There's a middle ground between "fighting wars for really stupid reasons like building democracy" and becoming isolationist. There really is - and anyways, the former is just an anomaly under Bush as Obama's hardly been doing new nation-building and has been dwindling the ones we have been stuck in thanks to Bush. That status quo, where the United States does whatever is necessary to protect its hegemony while avoiding direct conflict when possible is what I believe is necessary. And Paul would concede that hegemony for his ideal of going back to the 1800s, something I would never accept.

 

Non-intervention =/= isolationism.
Non-intervention =/= isolationism.
Non-intervention =/= isolationism.

Please do SOME reading before you make such untrue comments. It really makes you look stupid. These 2 things are worlds apart.

Free trade and active diplomacy are not isolationist. Get that through your skull. We're not going back to 1800 or whatever.

 

I wish Obama would kick Biden off the ticket and offer the spot to Ron Paul. It's crazy, yeah, but these are crazy times.

 

I'll take a tad crazy over moderation. Moderation has given us... Absolutely crazy.

 

I just glanced at the CBS news poll on Friday that has Ron Paul at 5%. That puts him ahead of Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman. I missed the debate but how much time were those candidates trailing Paul given?

 

I know Republicans are anti-media but will this sort of whining (or Bachmann's freak out) play well with them? It seems a little petty to me. Especially if his time evened out over the second half. There's no reason to believe the moderators colluded with the network to deny Paul time. That's pretty silly, isn't it? That CBS would be trying to stop Ron Paul? Or that they would fear him or his ideas in any way? He's stuck at 10%. Everyone knows he has a dedicated base of support and hasn't been able to take it to the next level. "The Man" is not out to get him.

I don't see why he doesn't just run as an independent, Libertarian or otherwise. He doesn't belong in either party and he could make a credible third party bid. He would get plenty of time in three-way general election debates. And he would have the polling numbers to get into those debates.

I think he would draw support away from both major party candidates, maybe equally, and could meaningfully impact the conversation that settles the race.

I'm confused as to why he keeps running as a Republican when he can't win there and could be playing (maybe even winning?) on a much larger stage.

 

Ross Perot Syndrome? You can exert more influence within a party platform even as a fringe percentage than you can from outside a party?

You don't get invited to talk on TV at all?

After the election third partiers are less than zero?

But it probably has to do with money.

 

Still no one can point to actual evidence of the military veteran donations?

 

Not possible to prove it either way. Active military vs. reservists vs. vets vs. families of all the above...what does it really matter other than as a talking point to be skewed by whatever side feels the need?