NY Times Clueless Why Ron Paul Keeps Campaigning

underdog · 10-04-2012, 11:11 PM

New York Times Clueless Why Ron Paul Keeps Campaigning

Infowars Kurt Nimmo

The New York Times has chided Ron Paul for staying in the race and not dropping out in deference to the establishment’s handpicked candidate, Mitt Romney.

“Of course, at this stage Mr. Paul is little more than a distraction to Mr. Romney, and the two candidates are said to be quite fond of each other. Until now, Mr. Santorum had also been pinning some of his hopes on Texas, which, with its 155 delegates, has the most delegates of any contest to date,” writes Gerry Mullany.

The Times can’t understand it. Why would Paul continue to run when there is no way the establishment will nominate him and its corporate media has all but stop reporting on him?

Paul’s campaign chairman Jesse Benton made it clear why Ron Paul continues to run. He released the following statement earlier today when it was announced Rick Santorum was cashing in his chips:

“Congratulations to Senator Santorum on running such a spirited campaign. Dr. Paul is now the last – and real – conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. We plan to continue running hard, secure delegates, and press the fight for limited, constitutional government in Tampa.”

It should be obvious by now what Ron Paul’s strategy is. Benton alluded to it – to “press the fight for limited, constitutional government’ all the way to the convention floor in Tampa.

read full article http://www.infowars.com/new-york-tim...s-campaigning/

freedomfox59 · 10-04-2012, 11:19 PM

I'm not sure why they're making such a big fuss. Even in 2008 he refused to suspend his campaign, and he was much smaller than this time around.

His campaign has always been an educational one. I'd say it's like a splash of fresh water compared to the globalist crap that most Americans have been drinking for decades. And people resonate with it. Even after he loses, he will have made some millions of people a little bit more awake.

ritchs · 11-04-2012, 03:27 AM

If he were not to get the Republican nomination (and its likely he won't due to both manipulation and delegates for sale) I would love to see him run on a third party ticket. Nobody can draw crowds like this guy, nobody gets standing ovations like this guy.

He may not get the delegates, but he would win a popular vote election in a landslide. It is a mystery in a way, how people can lose an election even if they get the popular majority vote, but the delegates vote differently. Sounds very crooked the electoral college idea

This is why the New York Times is clueless. Ochs-Sulzberger and the whole publishing empire that was behind it were liberals, they would never like a guy like Ron Paul in even the best of times.

http://en.wikipa.org/wikipedia/Electoral_college

An electoral college is a set of who are selected to elect a Candidate Many times, though, the electors are simply important people whose Wisdom would ideally provide a better choice (really?!?) than a larger body. The system can ignore the wishes of a general membership.

freedomfox59 · 11-04-2012, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ritchs

He may not get the delegates, but he would win a popular vote election in a landslide.

Ron Paul is standing in second in delegate count, contrary to what the Associated Press and others say. But maybe you're onto something -- if they can override the votes, why not override the delegate count? They've been underestimating RP's delegate numbers, probably because they plan to curb the number that low. But I don't think running as an Independent will get him any more votes than what he is getting now. I don't think it'll be like Ross Perot, where he'll be included in the debates, no, they'll just shut him out and make him an afterthought. Independent run might stir up some media attention (though most likely negative and condescending), but I was hoping that it would spill out to a brokered convention, that way RP would be afloat longer...But with Santorum dropping out and transferring much of his support to Romney, I just don't see that happening anymore...

And yes, I agree, the Electoral College is a total and obvious obstruction to fair distribution of representation. It is as indifferent as Congress or the Supreme Court. It's funny yet also sad how most Americans think they have a voice, yet the system is so slanted against us, it's blatantly obvious.

tenzingnorgay · 11-04-2012, 04:12 AM

The New York Times is owned by the same people that own Obama and Romney. They don't own Ron Paul, so of course they are annoyed he won't drop out.

10-04-2012, 11:11 PM	#1
underdog Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 493	NY Times Clueless Why Ron Paul Keeps Campaigning New York Times Clueless Why Ron Paul Keeps Campaigning Infowars Kurt Nimmo The New York Times has chided Ron Paul for staying in the race and not dropping out in deference to the establishment’s handpicked candidate, Mitt Romney. “Of course, at this stage Mr. Paul is little more than a distraction to Mr. Romney, and the two candidates are said to be quite fond of each other. Until now, Mr. Santorum had also been pinning some of his hopes on Texas, which, with its 155 delegates, has the most delegates of any contest to date,” writes Gerry Mullany. The Times can’t understand it. Why would Paul continue to run when there is no way the establishment will nominate him and its corporate media has all but stop reporting on him? Paul’s campaign chairman Jesse Benton made it clear why Ron Paul continues to run. He released the following statement earlier today when it was announced Rick Santorum was cashing in his chips: “Congratulations to Senator Santorum on running such a spirited campaign. Dr. Paul is now the last – and real – conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. We plan to continue running hard, secure delegates, and press the fight for limited, constitutional government in Tampa.” It should be obvious by now what Ron Paul’s strategy is. Benton alluded to it – to “press the fight for limited, constitutional government’ all the way to the convention floor in Tampa. read full article http://www.infowars.com/new-york-tim...s-campaigning/

11-04-2012, 03:27 AM	#3
ritchs Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Divided States of America Posts: 4,063	If he were not to get the Republican nomination (and its likely he won't due to both manipulation and delegates for sale) I would love to see him run on a third party ticket. Nobody can draw crowds like this guy, nobody gets standing ovations like this guy. He may not get the delegates, but he would win a popular vote election in a landslide. It is a mystery in a way, how people can lose an election even if they get the popular majority vote, but the delegates vote differently. Sounds very crooked the electoral college idea This is why the New York Times is clueless. Ochs-Sulzberger and the whole publishing empire that was behind it were liberals, they would never like a guy like Ron Paul in even the best of times. http://en.wikipa.org/wikipedia/Electoral_college An electoral college is a set of who are selected to elect a Candidate Many times, though, the electors are simply important people whose Wisdom would ideally provide a better choice (really?!?) than a larger body. The system can ignore the wishes of a general membership. __________________ “It doesn’t matter who the people voted for; they always vote for us”. - Illuminati Statement - Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee? Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.

10-04-2012, 11:19 PM	#2
freedomfox59 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: US Posts: 333	I'm not sure why they're making such a big fuss. Even in 2008 he refused to suspend his campaign, and he was much smaller than this time around. His campaign has always been an educational one. I'd say it's like a splash of fresh water compared to the globalist crap that most Americans have been drinking for decades. And people resonate with it. Even after he loses, he will have made some millions of people a little bit more awake.

11-04-2012, 04:12 AM	#5
tenzingnorgay Inactive Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 3,443	The New York Times is owned by the same people that own Obama and Romney. They don't own Ron Paul, so of course they are annoyed he won't drop out.