Is the negative media coverage of Ron Paul's campaign informed debate, or egotis

1. 59

   Tante Gretchenposted 13 years ago

   Is the negative media coverage of Ron Paul's campaign informed debate, or egotistical ignorance?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 68

   DJ Funktualposted 13 years ago

   why would you ask me?  i cover entertainment, dj culture.  please read gamergirl's hub about how to ask for a hub.  Thank you.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 13 years ago

   Neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties want Ron Paul to run for office. The major media essentially work for the Democratic and Republican parties. So Paul gets torn down with no good press and no good coverage. The networks' excuse: "He's on the fringe. He can't win". Those are the propaganda lines that are constantly shouted at our well-trained population by the media. The mainstream Dems and GOP are nearly identical, like two evenly-matched sports teams that both want to win the game. Of course they have to appear to be very different in order to get votes. Most Americans already know this. That is why voter turnout is always low and why I never vote.
   
   What is so funny about all of this and why it defies belief is that most of the corporations, businessmen, and bankers in the US are behind a man like Paul. But the national defense and national security people; military-industrialists; and the corporations that have benefited from globalization are not. In other words, he's not the imperialist candidate. He's not a national socialist or a fascist, but basically a pure conservative liberal, as opposed to a conservative authoritarian, or even a progressive authoritarian.

   replyreport
4. 76

   Faceless39posted 13 years ago

   Frankly, I think the powers-that-be are trying to drum-up support of Paul by not covering him.  He, like anyone else who gets to that height of politics, cannot be trusted.  And if he's elected, he's just another puppet working toward the NWO.

   replyreport
5. 81

   ptosisposted 13 years ago

   
   
   Old Empresario is correct.
   
   The Electoral College was originally intended to evade the people's vote and is a direct legacy of slavery called the 3/5 compromise, during the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia.
   
   The Electoral College is an insulating mechanism between a the 1%'s super rich and the people of America. Our current political process of electing the most powerful person in the world punishes minority interests in a serious way with the All-OR-NOTHING winner take all rule that disenfranchises millions of voters.
   
   
   If it's all a set-up then why are we strongly urged to vote? Because a very low voter turnout undermines the confidence of an election's legality.
   Different voting systems include:
   Plurality
   Two Round Runoff
   Instant Runoff
   Coombs Method (Reverse Instant Runoff)
   Approval Voting (simplest cardinal rating)
   Disapproval Voting
   Borda System (ranking)
   Condorcet Voting/Pairwise Method
   Cumulative Voting
   Limited Voting
   Bucklin Voting (first rank votes are counted first)
   Block Voting
   Preference/Hare (Choice Voting)

   replyreport