Every Republican candidate has had a chance to be the “anointed frontrunner”, except Ron Paul. It’s self-fulfilling propaganda. The mainstream media ignores Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning. If the mainstream media ignores Ron Paul, then he has no chance of winning.
However, Ron Paul might win Iowa and/or New Hampshire. If that happens, it’ll be too obviously corrupt if Ron Paul is ignored. Does Ron Paul have so much support that it’ll be too obvious if he gets Diebolded out of a primary win?
The mainstream media says “Ron Paul has some extremely vocal supporters on the Internet. That doesn’t translate to winning an election. (especially when we control the information that is presented to the sleeping masses)”
That’s missing the point. Why does Ron Paul have such dedicated support? Why does Ron Paul inspire dedicated hardcore support, but not the other candidates? Are Ron Paul supporters the biggest fruitcakes, or the most informed? That’s one problem with democracy. Even if I’m more than 1000x better informed than most people, I still get only one vote.
There is no chance that Ron Paul can win the nomination. Even if Ron Paul gets a majority or plurality of delegates in the primaries, he won’t get the superdelegates, Republican party insiders. The superdelegates can block the nomination of any non-approved candidate. If he does get cheated by the superdelgates, Ron Paul should have the balls to walk out of the convention and say “This election isn’t legitimate!” He won’t do that, especially if he wants Rand Paul to do well.
Articles like this one are offensive. Notice the headline “What Ron Paul Thinks Of America”. The headline should have been “Ron Paul Is An Arrogant Elitist Douchebag”, but that would be too obvious. That’s a very common psychopath trick. You indirectly imply that someone is evil or incompetent, without explicitly directly saying it. It is interesting to notice the propaganda tricks. I’m not fooled anymore. Most people are fooled, and that’s what counts in a democracy.
I wonder if people are “developing immunity” to propaganda? As mind control tricks become more refined, are people reacting and becoming harder to fool?
This story is interesting. The mainstream media is making a stink out of racist comments Ron Paul made in a newsletter more than 10 years ago. Ron Paul does have a valid point. He said “You media twits promote racism by mentioning it over and over again. I admit that the newsletter was a mistake. Let’s move on and talk about important things.”
Ron Paul walked out of an interview with CNN when they kept pounding him about the newsletter. Most mainstream media interviews are not impartial, especially when lynching is the goal. The interviewer was given marching orders to keep mentioning the newsletter and to refuse to discuss anything else. The goal is to make Ron Paul flustered, and then the interview is creatively edited. In effect, the interviewer forced Ron Paul to walk out, but the spin is that Ron Paul was the rude one who walked out.
If you’re talking like a sane person, if the other person says “I don’t want to talk about this!”, you move on and talk about something else. The interviewer was ordered to keep pressing about the racist newsletter. That was the propaganda goal of the interview.
The “racist newsletter” angle is clever spin. If Ron Paul were attacked for his anti-Federal Reserve viewpoint or anti-big government, then that might start a discussion. “Ron Paul wrote something racist 10 years ago. Therefore, all of Ron Paul’s viewpoints are wrong.” is ironclad reasoning, according to State anti-logic.
There isn’t much Ron Paul really can do, even if elected. Ron Paul wouldn’t use the President’s power to label people as terrorists and execute them without trial. That would be a quick way to get rid of all the banksters and lobbyists.
It’s interesting to notice the mainstream media attack on Ron Paul. It would be too obviously corrupt, to criticize his view on the Federal Reserve and big government. Instead, he’s attacked for his old newsletter, which has already been discussed a lot. Similarly, Herman Cain’s “sexual harassment” news was an old story. It was dragged out and prominently displayed, to keep him from winning. By repeatedly hyping a negative story or by censoring it and not mentioning it, the mainstream media can determine who wins. For example, suppose that the mainstream media pounded Obama for his connections to Corzine as much as they hounded Ron Paul for his newsletter. If they did that, he would have zero chance of getting reelected.