Blatant Media Lie about Ron Paul "far behind Romney in polls and has not won a single nominating co

I read this in the paper this morning and nearly spat out my food!

The only other Republican left in the race is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian who is far behind Romney in polls and has not won a single nominating contest.

The source article is from Reuters and has been spread all over the media already, one example here

The public needs to be aware of these media manipulations as much as possible. I don't know how anyone can call our society civil or fair while this sort of thing continues to happen. I hope the news outlets correct their publications of this article, or start publishing the new news as soon as possible - Ron Paul Wins Majority of Washington Delegates to Convention, Other States Expected to Follow

Yeah - looks like he's way behind -

Here's your proof!

After what I saw last weekend in philly... I believe the MSM is playing chicken with then numbers they are reporting. 4300 people ( I believe there was more PLUS the support we got from people walking by and driving by) but anyway... The numbers im seeing compared to the support I saw on the ground do not add up.

here is my video.

reply to post by Nick_X


I posted this comment over on that site.

It's also pretty much guaranteed that he'll win more states as well. This article is BLATANT manipulation. Somehow I doubt this will be corrected. The media is absolutely terrified that the people will learn the truth and rain on there parade by electing a TRUE man of the people. These "elections" are nothing more than a farce, just to give the illusion of a free republic. Everyday it's looking more and more like a Banana Republic.

reply to post by KibbleChild


Nice one!

Gotta give that site some credit for allowing non-filtered comments. Also - internet news kicks the ass of paper news, I don't know why a paper based news company would publish a two day old article with incorrect statements of such magnitude.

I guess it's convenient not to correct the wrongs when they fill some sort of ulterior agenda.

Talk about a lack of journalistic integrity.

Ron Paul won the nominating contest of the U.S Virgin Isles. That is verified and absolutely true.

Here's a link that confirms it: Huffington Post

That's enough to prove the International Business Times' story as reporting false information. There doesn't even need to be a mention of the recent delegate assignments of Washington State, Minnesota, Colorado, and others where Ron Paul is reportedly gaining more delegate support than Mitt Romney, as is reported upon in this article here:Ron Paul wins majority of Washington State delegates, other states expected to follow

...a day later by the very same International Business Times.

They should edit the prior article. Not because of the news that came a day later. But because Ron Paul did "win" the Virgin Isles, the same way Romney "won" states that Paul now has the most delegate support in.

It seems the definition of "winning" changes whether you are Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or Charlie Sheen.

reply to post by Nick_X


Well I'm hoping he pulls it off .. just so I can see the MSM reaction ... should be entertaining ....

Horrified that he didn't vote for on the CISPA house bill that just past... more violations of internet privacy...anyone know the reason ?

Also could someone explain to me RP's idea's on how we improve on 1 in 5 kids not getting enough to eat here in the USA as well as seniors going hungry.
Would we still have protections in place for our national parks.. I'd hate it if the Sequoyah monument got chopped down amoungst other unque treasures our country has ?
What's his policy on funding/structuring education ?

sitting on the fence right now... but do like the bring the troops home, and rolling back some of the terrible laws that have attacked our civil liberties.

For those always huffing and puffing about reliable sources...



ETA:

GO RON!!

I think the media is too dumb to realize some things..one being, votes dont matter, so they can trump up romney all they want...do they think the delegates for Dr Paul will just give up because they are spreading blatant lies? AINT HAPPENIN...Romney has stupid lazy rich people running as delegates and very few,most are secret Paul people,,We are ACTIVISTS ,energetic and smarter, WE WILL WIN ! We have infiltrated, we are winning and the west coast activists arent weak like here on the east coast media matrix mentality,,,Rachael Maddow and Ben swann need to be thanked by all Ronulans, I have thanked them extensively, Both have helped him out lots..Dont worry about the media,,,how stupid are they going to look when we win? no bored no life paul haters on the thread yet,,thats good,,i hear em comin,,,"hes unelectable" "hes crazy" "he doesnt have a chance"..like a parakkeet reciting what the dumb lady said on CNN...Romney AND Obama both spend fortunes,,,for what? no one is going to vote for either because of a commercial,,,then,,its just a poll at that,,so its a waste and could have fed poor starving people,,mitt makes 52000 a DAY! Shouldnt he be feeding the poor? I would be but I guess thats why Im a Paul supporter, I dont understand Elite scum.

It's sad to see how the MSM can spin Ron Paul right out of the way, but if by some miracle, he can get some news agency to stop ignoring him, there might be a chance that people at least see the blatant lies. I still think the election process has already been figured out and Obama will be around for 4 more. We only have the illusion of control. Vote away!

reply to post by network dude

I agree with you because of who will counting the votes (spain) and the fact that all voting will be electronic and no way to perform a recount is possible.

Man oh man, you Americans have a really confusing political system, not to mention the corruption and lack of media integrity. I have been following the Ron Paul campaign with baited breath hoping and praying that this man of integrity will prevail somehow.

I honestly have no idea where he stands or his campaign. The opinions and reports are all over the pond. You can tell his popularity is really shaking things up though, when the story is so skewed.
Can anyone tell me if he still has a chance or not? Or is it still too early to tell?

Originally posted by AliceBlackman
reply to post by Nick_X

 

Horrified that he didn't vote for on the CISPA house bill that just past... more violations of internet privacy...anyone know the reason ?

I don't mean to go off topic, but this poster keeps spouting this nonsense, I feel that a rebuttal needs to be issued:

Paul’s communications director Rachel Mills responded to our request for comment: “His schedule was cleared and his flight arrangements made to be here to vote this morning on the bill, when it had been scheduled. Then, with 23 minutes notice they changed the schedule and voted last night. He had a full campaign schedule in Texas last night. He obviously regrets missing this vote.”

from the biased source that many are parroting
This is merely another example of corruption in the Congress, certainly not an example of Dr. Paul failing his beloved country.

Edit to add on-topic statement: It has been obvious to those of us who are informed by sources other than the MSM that Dr. Paul has been doing very well this election cycle. There is still hope that he will obtain the Republican nomination. His delegate strategy is working full force, and the actual numbers have yet to be decided. I'm still actively involved in community efforts to support him, and I encourage all of you who want to see him in office to do the same.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


Thanks for clearing that up regarding the CISPA vote... good to know he's still on track with keeping his word ...

reply to post by AliceBlackman


Rep. Paul's popularity is based in large part on the view that he would dismantle the National Security State. A President Paul would no doubt attempt to do just that but he would undoubtedly fail. The Department of Defense is simply too politically powerful to be successfully taken on by a President who does not have a very solid majority in both houses of Congress. Remember typical Defense spending totals about $500 billion a year and that money goes to every state and congressional district in the country. Hence Senators and Reps voting with President Paul to cut defense would be voting to kill constituent jobs. Politicians who vote to kill jobs at home don't stay in Washington long. Moreover, the people coming to Congress at the beginning of a Paul administration would not be loyal followers like you guys here. No they would be Democratic Liberals and Republican Right Wingers none of whom would look to Paul as their natural and trusted leader. They'd be with him on some issues and against him on others. If Paul were deft he could put together bi-partisan majorities but that would take compromise and Paul's whole schtict is that he doesnt compromise. Sure he might get parts of the Patriot Act and the latest NDAA amended but any serious attempt to repeal or amend those acts in ways that restore confiscated liberties would be rebuffed.

Paul supporters have argued that he could close the overseas bases and bring the troops home from everywhere with an executive order. That sounds good in theory but even if he didn't die of a "heart attack" (and he is 76) the night before that order was signed, it would leave him terribly vulnerable and subject to immediate impeachment and removal were another 9/11 like event to occur after the military stood down. And who here would want to bet AGAINST such an attack happening?


Paul would seek to eliminate the Depts of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy and Labor. Most if not all programs offering support to citizens either directly or indirectly (through states) would disappear. The so called dependency society would disappear over night and while that would work out for people who have their millions to depend on, it wouldn't be so great for the rest of us.

Most environmental and almost all consumer protections would be eliminated under a Paul administration. There would be no stop to mountain top removal coal mining; unsafe deep water oil drilling and attendant Deepwater Horizon like disasters. Resource extraction companies would frack where and when they liked. Labels on food telling you what was in it would disappear. Government spending to support basic scientific research would be a memory. The right of workers to organize and bargain collectively would be revoked. We would not in fact recognize the America a Paul administration bequeathed us. We Americans like to talk large about being independent but the fact is most of us are interdependent. One of the things we have grown used to depending on is that the Federal govt will use its power to provide at least the semblance of an even playing field.in rights competitions and provision of necessary services. All that would go away.

And if you think being on the Gold standard is so hunkie, google William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech and read some economic history.

I really feel sorry for the kids of today they only have Old Man Paul. My generation had Robert Kennedy.

I have a question and comment...forgive me if this is just stupid. Why is our voting a "secret ballot"? Whose interest is served by this? I may not mention who I vote for if I know the person I'm speaking with is hard-core for the other guy...but...most of the time I think people are proud of their vote and who they cast their vote for. Like going to a football game...you root loudly for your team.

So...is keeping our vote secret really a simple means of hiding a conspiracy where the Dems and Reps agree to move certain people to the election? If everyone's vote were flashed above the voting booth, written in the sky and blasted on a speaker...who would be hurt except for those who may be fixing elections?

reply to post by lunatux


Where's el Presidente when ya' need him? LOL I don't have time to refute the utter nonsense you just spewed about Ron Paul, so I'm hoping he'll come along and do it.

I will say this, however, concerning your "old man Paul" derogatory comments: I take it you're willing to take Ron Paul up on his offer to ride a bike through Houston, 20 miles, 100 degree weather, 100 % humidity??? He's an exercise fanatic, rides a bike daily, jogs, etc. He's healthier than I am...

reply to post by lunatux

Originally posted by lunatux


Paul supporters have argued that he could close the overseas bases and bring the troops home from everywhere with an executive order. That sounds good in theory but even if he didn't die of a "heart attack" (and he is 76) the night before that order was signed, it would leave him terribly vulnerable and subject to immediate impeachment and removal were another 9/11 like event to occur after the military stood down. And who here would want to bet AGAINST such an attack happening?

One of the major causes of 9/11 (and most other terrorist attacks in the Western world) are a direct result of our intervening in their internal politics and their way of life. If we pulled our soldiers out of the hundreds of bases surrounding Southwest Asia, these hostilities, would at a minimum, be reduced. If we instead focused on making peaceful relations and increasing our education of Americans with proper, unbiased education on Islam and the history of the "Holy Land" we could ensure peace between Southwest Asia and the United States and possibly the entire Western world.

Paul would seek to eliminate the Depts of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy and Labor. Most if not all programs offering support to citizens either directly or indirectly (through states) would disappear. The so called dependency society would disappear over night and while that would work out for people who have their millions to depend on, it wouldn't be so great for the rest of us.

Wrong. Simply wrong. Dr. Paul does not want to completely rid away of these departments. He wants to give their powers to the individual states. Why should a government in Washington D.C tell a city school in Portland, Oregon what to teach its kids? Why should the Dept. of Energy (which has failed all of its initial goals) be in control of power plants in Oregon and Alabama and Florida and Texas when each of these states could cater standards and controls to their own specific needs? Why should a federal housing project take precedence over a project started by a local government that could more effectively and efficiently handle the problem? There simply is no Constitutional legitimacy or logical reason for nearly half of the cabinet departments.

Most environmental and almost all consumer protections would be eliminated under a Paul administration. There would be no stop to mountain top removal coal mining; unsafe deep water oil drilling and attendant Deepwater Horizon like disasters. Resource extraction companies would frack where and when they liked. Labels on food telling you what was in it would disappear. Government spending to support basic scientific research would be a memory. The right of workers to organize and bargain collectively would be revoked. We would not in fact recognize the America a Paul administration bequeathed us. We Americans like to talk large about being independent but the fact is most of us are interdependent. One of the things we have grown used to depending on is that the Federal govt will use its power to provide at least the semblance of an even playing field.in rights competitions and provision of necessary services. All that would go away.

Wrong again. These standards could be easily and more effectively handled by their respective states. If the consumers of Virginia are more willing to accept a higher mercury content in their shellfish (as dumb as that example is) than those in California, why not let them? If a state like Louisiana wants to take the risk of allowing oil companies to drill off their coast, why not let them? There will be no FEMA to save them and states will have to learn responsibility for their actions. If we get rid of the minimum wage and international health standards, you allow states like New York with higher prices of living to adjust their own minimum wage to fit their standard while making sure that workers in Mississippi are strangled to death by an employer simply following the "minimum wage."

The examples go on and on. Is this to say I support all of Paul's policies? No. But he is better than Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama.

Ron Paul is the worst presidential candidate I have ever seen. He flip flops on every issue and has no experience in politics at all. Pass

reply to post by Blargcakes

He flip flops on every issue and has no experience in politics at all.

Name one flip flop.

In 30 years there has only been once stance he's changed his position on, but I bet you don't know what that is. Unless you google it.

I guess you don't consider 30 years of experience, experience. Weird.