I'm not sure what you mean by less impressive but just in case we're confused again... 5,200 people attended his event in Minnesota last week. It was record breaking attendence for his rallys thus far. I think it was like 5,000 elsewhere before Minnesota.
A few days later here in Chico, california (which was on tuesday) They beat that record with 6,200.
Last night in UCLA at the beginning of his speech he announced to us that we just beat that record again
Not sure what the final numbers were but I've been reading up to 6,800-10,000
Apparently hundreds turned away because of capacity. As you can see... there are monkeys in the trees.
I'd just imagine Paul's policies, especially on gay rights or the war on drugs, would be much more popular in California than Illinois.
I'm not surprised he has well attended rallies at all. Such is the nature of his campaign. The people who support Paul are much more enthusiastic than are the supporters of other candidates. I think this enthusiasm is a much better explanation for such rallies than the idea that each attendee represents hundreds of people who will vote for Paul.
I'd actually be interested in the numbers from those ridings when they come out. I'd wager the people at the rally represent a very sizable percentage of the total number of people who vote for Paul, especially compared to someone like Romney, who most Reps hold their nose as they vote for.
During the huge line before we entered the court there was a good handful of people going around making sure everyone was registered. They were pretty persistent as well. They kept going on about how its important to go out and vote in june, register before may 21st, republican, etc etc (i thought it was an open primary but I guess not)
Even the guy introducing paul mentioned in. I'm sure the people there understood what was needed to be done to win this.
But besides all that... I think if the media actually did a fair coverage of ANY of Pauls campaigns, rallys, speeches, the whole shebang, then people would be able to see the damn truth behind ron pauls support. But instead, they constantly call him unelectable. They hide him from the damn polls (in the case where they took his name out and put romney twice) What THE ****? They flat out diss him any chance they get, asking questions like "when will you drop out?" They don't stop showing speculated delegates (Gingrich should be in last) but shows Paul with 50 or so.
Their favorite is romney obviously. Even my own mother MY OWN DAMN MOTHER is like "Romney!"
Im thinking... WHAT THE ****! You dont even know anything about him.
"hes winning"
facepalm
Apparently the news knows how to work the minds of ****ing morons.
Who pays these ****ers?
Can't that just be because they all think he's wrong? When Fox says things biased against Dem and NBC says things biased against Repubs its because they disagree with those people and thus want them to fail. Of course I've even seen Libertarian news sites that are heavily critical of Paul, so maybe there is a conspiracy.
It constantly seems like Paul's supporters are unable to imagine that a person might honestly disagree with Paul. This is part of the reason I can't help but think of it as a cult of personality.
Wait a second . . . cult of personality . . . knows how to arrange huge rallies despite minimal support in the general population . . . conspiracy theorist . . . has problems with bankers . . .
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can't that just be because they all think he's wrong? When Fox says things biased against Dem and NBC says things biased against Repubs its because they disagree with those people and thus want them to fail. Of course I've even seen Libertarian news sites that are heavily critical of Paul, so maybe there is a conspiracy.It constantly seems like Paul's supporters are unable to imagine that a person might honestly disagree with Paul. This is part of the reason I can't help but think of it as a cult of personality.
Wait a second . . . cult of personality . . . knows how to arrange huge rallies despite minimal support in the general population . . . conspiracy theorist . . . has problems with bankers . . .
Uhhh, no.
That's not what I was referring to, at all. I was referring to stuff like, "And Romney comes in at number 1. Mitt is winning this due to bla bla bla. And number 3 is Newt."
Wait a minute. What happened to Paul at in the #2 slot? Oh, right, they ignored him.
That's a lot different that disagreeing with his platform. That would be fine to me. It's the omission that is hilariously obvious.
"No one takes Ron Paul seriously."
But a better question is: what do you dislike about Ron Paul's policies? Be specific.
The reason the media likes to ignore rep. Paul is because he never really had a chance of winning this race. He hasn't won a single primary and is consistently outperformed at the polls by mittens and the other two. In terms of both delegates won and absolute votes, he has been dead last behind any other person who cared to run when it came down to it.
Are his supporters more enthusiastic than anyone else's? Absolutely. So enthusiastic they've shown a willingness to lie and cheat if they think it will give rep. Paul a chance to steal the nomination (since it's clear by now he has no chance of winning anything outright). Having a (relatively speaking) few hardcore supporters who fill up rallys and vote in straw polls doesn't really matter if that doesn't translate into success at the polls
Personally, I'm glad to see this. I will never support Ron Paul, because it's pretty clear once you cut the the rhetoric (that is, the bull$hit) that he cares more about the rights of the state(s) than he does the rights of the people. And the only thing he cares about more than states rights are his christian fundamentalist beliefs. A Ron Paul administration would see the federal outlawing of abortion and enshrinement of legal discrimination against homosexuals, just as much as a santorum administration.
p.s.
Also, Mairuzu, since you ignored it the first couple of times:
Originally posted by inimalistWhy are you unwilling to simply come out and say one way or the other if you believe rep Paul was the victim of massive voter fraud?
Do you think Paul received more votes [anywhere] than did Romney or Santorum?
And please don't tell me to just watch the videos. I did watch them. I don't see any conclusive evidence of the kind of voter fraud their titles would imply, so the only conclusion I can draw from them is that some of rep Paul's supporters are whiny sore losers. Was that the impression you keep hinting we were supposed to come away with?
p.p.s.
I had several links supporting my claims of lying and cheating supportes, but apperently I'm too new here to post links. I guess you'll have to take my word for it for now :-/
Originally posted by GonzoMcFonzo
The reason the media likes to ignore rep. Paul is because he never really had a chance of winning this race. He hasn't won a single primary and is consistently outperformed at the polls by mittens and the other two. In terms of both delegates won and absolute votes, he has been dead last behind any other person who cared to run when it came down to it.Are his supporters more enthusiastic than anyone else's? Absolutely. So enthusiastic they've shown a willingness to lie and cheat if they think it will give rep. Paul a chance to steal the nomination (since it's clear by now he has no chance of winning anything outright). Having a (relatively speaking) few hardcore supporters who fill up rallys and vote in straw polls doesn't really matter if that doesn't translate into success at the polls
Personally, I'm glad to see this. I will never support Ron Paul, because it's pretty clear once you cut the the rhetoric (that is, the bull$hit) that he cares more about the rights of the state(s) than he does the rights of the people. And the only thing he cares about more than states rights are his christian fundamentalist beliefs. A Ron Paul administration would see the federal outlawing of abortion and enshrinement of legal discrimination against homosexuals, just as much as a santorum administration.
p.s.
Also, Mairuzu, since you ignored it the first couple of times:
Why are you unwilling to simply come out and say one way or the other if you believe rep Paul was the victim of massive voter fraud?And please don't tell me to just watch the videos. I did watch them. I don't see any conclusive evidence of the kind of voter fraud their titles would imply, so the only conclusion I can draw from them is that some of rep Paul's supporters are whiny sore losers. Was that the impression you keep hinting we were supposed to come away with?
p.p.s.
I had several links supporting my claims of lying and cheating supportes, but apperently I'm too new here to post links. I guess you'll have to take my word for it for now :-/
I wonder who's sock you are?
hmm
Originally posted by dadudemon
😆So wouldn't that make them...a great depressant? 313
At least someone got it. 😉
Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not think anyone can deny that there is a clear media bias against Paul.
Of course this is; he's ugly. The shallow foreheaded media always have a bias toward ugly people.
You can find a shit ton of videos proving the media bias against him. Even John stewart did his take on it and with his personality he portrayed it well. You'd have to be naive to not see how obvious it is and how far they go.
Its corporate main stream media. Bought and paid. Simple as that.
Why would anyone support Romney? Hes another goldman sachs cock sucker. How do you even know what the hell he stands for on any issue?
And thats just one video.
Why does the media LOVE Romney as they LOVED, and probably still do, Obama? Goldman sack suckers. Banker loving fools.
No wonder this country is ****ed.