Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

In the fiscal situation the government is in, it is unnecessary in it's current form. Maybe some of their tasks can be done by the national weather service, national guard, and Red Cross , but disaster relief is usually coordinated at the local and state level. Is there a real 'need' for a $7 billion dollar coordinating agency (I'm not sure if their budget allows fast spending of that money to repair roads and electrical infrastructure though)? But that is a debate that we should be having, and politicians on both sides should be explaining what they think on the issue. There should be some process in place that says, how could we get the same level of service for less money? And the media should stay out of giving their opinions on it, and present the facts and show what FEMA and the other agencies do work.

And I don't believe polls will ever be able to remove bias. What if the newspaper did a poll on if Climate Change is happening, and if they are contributing to it? Do you think the random people they pick will have actually looked at temperature data taken from around the world, have access to satellite data from NASA, and go against what their 'teammates' in politics say?

 

Maybe some tasks done by National Weather Service, National Guard, Red Cross? You can add Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. A coordinating agency is still needed. That is one role of FEMA, particular in the case of major disasters. Many states dont have the capacity. In fact, in many states, the National Guard is already stretched to the limits, with personnel and equipment serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As an example, Vermont recently had to borrow helicopters to drop food into several towns completely cut-off by the flooding from Irene because many of their helicopters were in Afghanistan.

In fact, many states rely, in part, on FEMA funding for the most basic disaster preparedness planning (another role of FEMA).

The other major role for FEMA, and a significant part (nearly half) of the FEMA budget is for disaster relief to individuals. The states dont have the resources and relying on donations to the Red Cross hardly provides a level of certainty.

Unless you dont believe the federal government should be assisting citizens, even at a minimal level with financial assistance or temporary housing. who might lose everything in a natural disaster.

As I said, if you know how polls work, they are corrected for the bias, resulting in the margin of error. Polls are not perfect but, for the most part, they are statistically reliable in providing a snapshot of public opinion as long as you account for the margin of error.

I wouldnt bet my house on the results of a poll, but they serve their purpose with an acceptable level of confidence for me.

 

Polling these days is getting less and less accurate, especially if it is conducted via phone. Pollsters are not allowed calling cell phones, and fewer and fewer young people are keeping their land lines (thus, the polls tend to measure the opinions of an increasingly older segment of the population)

 

Most national polling companies now include cell phones; only automated polls are not allowed. Rasmussen is one of the few national pollsters that does not include cell phones, which is why it is generally regarding as having a republican bias.

Smaller state/local pollsters are less likely to include cell phones because of the higher costs.

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

 

haha he gets more votes than all the other candidates combined and then the news doesn't even mention him. they are scared to death of him.

during a commercial rick perry physically intimidated him to the point where paul's security had to come over. i guess perry didn't like him talking about how he forced girls to take a deadly vaccine or that he supported al gore and hillary care.

 

You're not really suggesting that is web poll is indicative of anything more than the fact that Paul's young male supporters network with each other to push his numbers up. Totally unscientific web (click the winner) polls like this are hardly newsworthy.

Perry did himself no harm in his first time out and it is looking more and more like a two man race, with Paul hanging around to pick up his 5-10% and the beginning of a slow fade for Bachmann.

 

Not saying it's scientific, no, but if Perry or Romney had "won" the poll, it would be mentioned in the news cycle

 

Or maybe Ron Paul marginalizes himself when he talks about a gallon of gas costing a dime if we would return to a system of silver coinage or when he blames government regulation, not al Queda, for the attacks on 9/11.

Or when he starts lecturing the public on the Austrian school of economics.

Or maybe Ron Paul supporters marginalize him when they suggest he was physically intimidated by Perry (Paul described it as a casual conversation) and fear for his safety and talk about conspiracy theories against him and retaliation because everyone it out to get him.

Or the silliness with a baseless web poll that no credible news source would report on or take seriously for any candidate.

It just gets a little repetitive to keep hearing about Paul's lack of credibility as a top candidate being blamed on everyone but himself and his extremist, and some cases, downright bizarre, policies.

One should not confuse a loud base of supporters with a large base of supporters.

 

If we went back to the value of the dollar in the 1800's, where a gun cost $15, a horse was $40, and a quart of milk was 50 cents... I don't understand how we would do that unless we did the Mexican Peso method of moving the decimal point of everyone's net worth.

If it costs me $5 in today's dollars to buy into this new 'silver/gold' dime, is it any better?

And I think he blames America's interventionist foreign policy and over sized military with un-needed and expensive bases around the world as to why 9/11 occurred. But, if we didn't need Middle Eastern oil, they wouldn't have had an reason either. It would be nice if Ron Paul's environmental and energy policy were a little better.

 

I will be voting for Ron Paul. He's the only candidate bold enough to strip down a broken system and start fresh. He's the only candidate truly willing to shrink our government down, eliminate costly bureaucracies, and slowly but surely remove the power from the politicians and give it back to the people.

That said, after watching the Republican presidential debate last night, it's abundantly clear that Romney is the stand alone frontrunner. He wont do anything too drastic when he gets into office but he talks a good enough game to get there. He's the safe vote and he'll win the nomination.

 

Ron Paul doesnt want to start fresh. He wants to return to the golden age of the 19th century...no government regulations, no social safety net, no protections for the people. Who had the power in that environment? The robber barons, not the vast majority of the people.

 

No, Paul does not want to eliminate government regulations he wants to kill the corrupt, illegal Fed and institute a flat tax. It's just too bad that people see anyone who supports a flat tax as looney, even though it's the only realistic way to encourage exported jobs and off shore money back to the U.S.

 

I think you're correct there, Eddie. Romney will be hoisted into the position. The rest are batshit crazy and are only there to make him appear less batshit crazy. With the exception of that guy who used to be Obama's ambassador to China. The guy who's name no one can remember. Former Governor of Utah or Wyoming or something. Yeah, him. Reasonable moderate Republican type that libertarians and tea partiers hate. Is he even still in the race?

By the way, even if Ron Paul would still be willing to perform all those parlor tricks once he's in office, he can't do jack all by himself. No President can. It's called separation of powers. Checks and balances. You know, all that boring history stuff we were taught in public school.

Oops, just saw this:

You obviously don't know your own guy. That's his numero uno stance.

One more thing, on general note - Please stop parroting Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neil Borz, Laura Ingram and whatever other right wing talk show hosts you're listening to. Do yourself a favor and research this stuff for yourself. It's not hard. Really.

 

He wants to eliminate government regulation in favor of corporate self-policing.

The flat tax? I dont think supporters are looney, I just havent seen a flat that would not cost the middle class more in taxes and the top one percent less. Do you think that is fair?

 

None of them are crazy, they just seem crazy to politically correct liberals. Eliminating the Fed and instituting a flat tax aren't parlor tricks...they're necessities if we're ever going to get this economy and this country back on track, imho.
--- merged: Oct 13, 2011 3:53 AM ---

I'm not sure you understand what Ron Paul's tax policy is all about so I'll post this exerpt:

Ron Paul: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the Federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.
The 16th Amendment gives the Federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.

Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the Federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the Federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal government.

Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on compliance with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that question the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) “withholding” system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent “pro-taxpayer” reforms.

Madam Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a Federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment

 

I do think Cain's 999 flat tax proposal is looney.

A nine percent income tax on all brackets, no deductions - which signficantly raises the taxes of the lower two brackets and significantly lowers the taxes of the top two brackets, with a significant loss of revenue.

A nine percent corporate tax, with a loss of even more revenue.

A nine percent sales tax, with no exemptions for food, clothing or the basics necessities- the most regressive tax of all.

And finally, eliminating the payroll tax.

The result of the first three would be be so little revenue, it would require either eliminating near all discretionary spending or exploding the deficit....all on the backs of the middle class and working poor who would see their taxes increase signficantly.

The result of the last would be an end to the social safety net for seniors.