YOu answered your own questions on popularity. MEDIA COVERAGE AND KNOWLEDGE OF SOMEONES NAME TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT TRUE POPULARITY! Ask the question, NOT "who is Ron Paul" BUT "Who is Osama Bin Laden" AND YOUR WHOLE theory is shot to shit. Thus your model of popularity would insinuate that Osama Bin Laden is more popular then Ron Paul.
You sir are a moron. Kill yourself now, I dont want you wasting anymore of my oxygen.
@XOmniverse first off, this is my second vid of yours that i have viewed, i subbed. great channel.
but more people use the internet mediums for info than watch msm. RP may be very popular and not on msm and still popular with actual population. AOL poll may have gotten, obviously internet savy people, a large portion of votes, bc he is popular.
US soldiers think he's good enough to vote for and donate to too. largest in one day! peace.
Here is an idea and if it sounds good please forward it on. Every RP support goes and gets part-time work (baby sitting, mowing lawns, pizza delivery, use your talents and gifts) and saves it until the race for 2012 starts then donates 50% and uses the other 50% for travel to rallies for RP. When we donate that money it needs to be on a single day. The media will have no choice to notice RP if we can donate $10 million or more in a single day.
All of the major media corporations that cover political events are owned by Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch and General Electric. Thus, there is nary a diversity between the media outlets that determine the popularity of a political candidate. If It always comes down to Rep. vs. Dem., then of course someone who so strongly alienates the former and latters point of view, is going to be 'less popular' in non internet arenas. Or am i mistaken?
you make some grate valid points thumbs up for it. i just wanted to throw out a comment of ron pouls campain have ben totaly nullifyed over here in erupa
iv ben following this pressident campaine alot from over here becours it is being played out like a game of chess
I realized that Ron Paul was a crackpot long ago... His "doom & gloom" look at the economy is starting to get tiring. His supporters are all basically bandwagon boys looking for support for their radical viewpoints.
And do you really suport anarchism?,and what issues do you have with Dr.ron paul?.And if you do support anarchy youre delusional living in a pseudo intellectaul dreamworld.Like communism it sounds good in theory but fails in practice,and if it where ever implemented(anarchy)you would not survive long.
Please lets do a poll,lets ask all the Mcain/Obama/Clinton voters or supporters if they can identify or name any of the policys/voting record of there canidate?versus ron paul voters.The non ron paul voters would only be able to name either one fringe issue of non importance;gay marrige,abortion.... or none at all,so why would they vote for that person that they really no nothing about??????
Of course this is not true, but look how easily I just used flawed logic to support my argument.
A simple (although costly) solution to the question would to be to poll 2 thousand US citizens and find out how many know a little about Ron Paul and how many of them support him...
Also, although its true that the Internet could be biased... why is it SO biased in his favor? If there are tons of Paul supporters online, why aren't there even more Obama, and McCain supporters? Maybe Obama and McCain supporters dont have the internet? One could even argue that most supporters of the other candidate are too stupid to use the internet, and only the smart people who support Ron Paul are can figure it out.
He makes a good point but just because you cant prove that there are a proportional amount of Paul supporters in the real world doesnt mean its not true
What about:
The supporters who raided the Giuliani and other's rallies with more people than them?
The fact that he raised more money from veterans than anyone else?
The applause in many of his debates?
The people who showed up to see him on The Colbert Report, where the staff said they never see that many people even for huge celebrities?
If the TV and news media are blocking out Ron Paul the public becomes unaware of him (they are dumbed down), therefore asking someone on the street does not represent the true picture.
i think got the idea wrong what the video was showing the increase or decrease of popularity and hence i dont think its a flaw it was very valid argument , if you see its a trend not and the reason why everyone knows obama and hillary now is because of media coverage where as before that no one knew them and ron paul was moe popular, now obv both hilary and obama are popular
haha what are these people doing when theyre not lecturing anarchists on the merits of less robbery? these guys have as much philo and econ theory for support as moderate conservatives...wait a minute...
I think it's a mistake for libertarians not to support Ron Paul. Rothbard believed it was good strategy to make alliances sometimes even though we did not agree with everything they believed in. I am a market anarchist myself but I realize that Ron Paul is helping to educate a lot of people about libertarianism, what it wrong with that? In the end, if people are not educated about freedom there will not be an market anarchist society.
I'm not saying Ron Paul is very popular outside the internet, but he's not exactly unknown either, he was averaging about 7% in the primaries, and that is with a lot less coverage than the front runners, and much less favorable coverage. Also this was in the warmongering republican race, if it came to a general election, he would be well over 15%.
His libertarianism means it would be hard for him to get a lot more than that.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Ron Paul has more internet action than mainstream media....(guessing your not one ) they are bias. Ron Paul is getting more and more attention than you would think.
No shit sherlock? But because the mainstream media wont let anyone see him speak or debate, the internet is all that we have. There is no flaw in his argument, nor does he say his overall popularity extend the bounds of the internet. The current polls show him as being not popular at all. We dont need your stupid blabbering to tell us what we already know. Go get some sunshine dork boy!
I wanted to say thank you for this vid. Yes I do support Ron all the way. However I don't want to look dumb posting a video that is not quite logical. One thing I do disagree with is the assumption (if there is one) that the media is not bias .. or is not hiding Ron Paul news. I can provide you with many first hand accounts and youtube vids about important ron paul news that was not covered. News such as the 400 RP supporters who were outside of a McCain speech (ignored completely) ...
I don't assume that. I suggested that he educate himself on the anarchist position regarding the constitution instead of accusing me of not understanding the constitution.
I voted for Ron Paul and as an anarchist anarchocapitalist libertarian like yourself, I must say that you are pretty much owning some of the more cult-like Paul followers. You're made of win, man.
Personally I feel that a slight majority of Paul supporters are familiar with Rothbard, Konkin, Spooner, etc. but the rest are either 9/11 truthers or people who are STILL saying "Google Ron Paul" instead of telling people about (like you said) natural rights and liberty.
"Sample size is important, but you don't have a truly random sample either. Without that, your math is completely useless.
Facts are facts, lol."
Bump.
It amazes me there are still people ignorant enough to actually insist that Ron Paul got a fair shake from the mainstream media.
Whats wrong with you? Jerry Days videos point was that the MSM completely shafted Ron Paul. The argument in that video was NOT "how popular" Ron Paul is.
I don't recall ever saying the mainstream media gave him a fair shake. I just said that internet popularity is not an accurate measurement of popularity among the population as a whole, and that Ron Paul is more popular on the internet.
We agree. That's not any reason to not support him though. Who will you vote for?
Following your lead you are actually towing the line for the status quo by trivializing these statistics. Who do you think uses these kinds of tracking tools? It's called Google TRENDS, it tracks behavior. We're being tracked from outside our meme by our government. I think Ron recognizes this and will work to ease the pressure a bit more than any of the others. That's why he gets my vote.
I totally agree with Ron Paul on everything that needs to happen in this government, and if I vote, I plan on writing that man's name in. (Look at my favorites. They're 70% Ron Paul videos) I KNOW he didn't get a fair shake in the MSM. Not even close. But the straw polls do not represent RANDOM samples of the American population
For a simple random sample from a large population, the maximum margin of error is a simple re-expression of the sample size n. The numerators of these equations are rounded to two decimal places.
According to a 2007 Harris Poll ,178 millions of adults go online in the US. ( ~ 80% )
Now lets assume, that only 10 % of these use the Internet for News Coverage, then the margin of Error is only 0.00003 Percent. ( See next Post )
GIGO. You got some fancy math there, but it don't apply pal. Sample size is important, but you don't have a truly random sample either. Without that, your math is completely useless.
You're right internet popularity does not equal general public popularity. I will assert people who use the internet for their information tend to be more savvy than the general msm spoonfed Joe Schmoes. They get it with RP. The brainwashed populace eats all the crap handed to them and won't lift a finger to pick their teeth.
If RP got as much face time and ass kissing on the boob tube as an Obama or a McCain he'd be a shoe-in. The media is biased and lies. THAT'S the point you're missing.
that's true, but I think (might be wrong) that XOmniverse was mostly going for discrediting the use of GoogleTrends and whatever polls to say that RP really is popular.
I doubt that he would disagree with you considering that Ron Paul got 4000 some hits versus McDouche's 100,000 over the same time period on the MSM. That'll be a blow to anyone's campaign.
THAT says a lot, though. Then it starts the slippery slope once you go there. Then all kinds of shit falls into place which is more important than any of this statistical spaghetti. Imagine if he was treated as sychophantically as Brian Williams did just recently with Obama the Placebo? MSM is a very strong influence on hypnotized people. THAT'S what we should be focusing on instead of muddying "the waters (with technicalities) to make them look deep.".
Dude, figure out what you're going to say, then SAY IT! I couldn't even stick around to watch all of it because you're so clearly one of these people that just likes to drag things out just to be the center of attention. Consolidate, man.
XOmniverse, great vid, I agree with what u say but I just had to set the record straight on this comment. Paul doesn't oppose immigration, or illegal immigration. What he opposes are the incentives that bring them over and keep them over. Specifically, welfare for illegal immigrants, and easy citizenship. He says that because of current economic conditions they are the scapegoat.
But after reading some Rothbard followed by some Konkin, I am starting to distance myself from the RP Revolution.
Oh wow... you didn't need the whole video to say this. Its called sampling. Poll's such as gallup strive to sample the population as randomly as possible. The internet is extremely popular amongst libertarians, and so is Ron Paul. Thus a sample of a million internet users is certain to be less acurate then a more random three thousand person gallup sample. Many commenters here need a statistics class or three.
I lean anarcho-capitalist myself, but support Ron Paul anyway as a step in the right direction.
To support your thesis, I'll add that the average Ron Paul supporter (like myself) will probably Google "Ron Paul" three times a day, seven days a week, just to get the news that the MSM won't report on TV. This "inflates" the appearance of his GoogleTrends support. Supporters of other candidates don't need to do this.
My theory's problem is that Ron Paul creams Mike Gravel on GoogleTrends....
How do you explain the THOUSANDS of real, live supporters at Ron Paul's rallies? How do explain his receiving more donations from real, live, active duty military personnel in Q3 and Q4 than any other candidate? He received more from them in Q4 than ALL of the remaining candidates combined! How do you explain his receiving more in total donations in Q4 than any other Republican candidate? How do explain his new book shooting to #13 on Amazon's best seller list yesterday?
The same way it can be explained that 20,000 people showing up at Metallica concerts. Paul is a rock star politician. He has a small (in proportion to the whole population) but dedicated group of followers. Just as a band's fans will rush out and buy a new album when it comes out, or go to see them in concert, so will Paul's fans. You can't conclude from that that that Metallica or Ron Paul are popular among the general population.
I can't go for that. I have found that all around my neighborhood, there were people of all ages, old young black white hispanic mormon etc. who are into Ron Paul, and had been made to believe they were in the minority. Everyone started talking to each other and putting signs in their front yard, and it became obvious that we were not in the minority. And I live in AZ. Most
AZ reps actually despise McCain because of his wussy boarder issues, among other things.
Yes it is, and he's getting rich. Not that he wasn't doing ok already with his portfolio of gold stocks, reputed to be over $2 million worth. Congratulations to him.
And deservedly so. It's a great little book. I got my copy a few days ago. He has worked tirelessly to try to turn this country around, and this book will help to spread the word.
But, my point in that post was to make one more point that refutes your "rock star" claim. That's not just a handful of wild teenage internet freaks pushing that book to #1. America knows it's in trouble, and wants change. Real change. And Ron Paul's it.
Another point is that Ron Paul delegates are taking over in many republican conventions. In Nevada the McSame delegates panicked and walked out when they realized they were outnumbered and out fire-powered. Ron Paul delegates have made strides in other states such as Montana and Washington state.
This shit is real as a heart attack, it's not just the internet, and it's not going away.
I think you're a little wrong on this one. The graph showing the popularity of ron paul on the media does not represent the views of the public, it represents the popularity of ron paul on the media. The content of the media id not chosen by the general population.
The internet graph represents what people CHOOSE to watch, you cant choose to watch ron paul on the media because the media control the content.
it shows what people are choosing to watch, and they coose ron paul.
I guess your point is that the internet doesn't influence the general public. Your right. But I think we all can agree that the media, tee vee for instance, does. Which has been our complaint, Ron Paul hasn't received the media attention that the on line popularity would dictate.
I would say that you have a point, he does rule when it comes to the internet. But as far as non-internet popularity, we see that Ron Paul has about 20,000 meet up groups across the country. He did well in many of the primaries such as Nevada, Montana, Alaska, Maine, and the recent Pennsylvania. I can't wait to see the turn out for the march in DC that is planned. So he's done pretty good despite the fact that the media gave him little attention.
Such a poor production value did not help your lame and boring presentation. Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to restore freedoms that has been slowly taken away over the years. He supports many of the libertarian principals of self government. We don't want big brother to take care of us. Don't waste your energy with this garbage.
Just calling out the fallacy doesn't work with the normies ;)
btw I do agree with you in this video, but have serious questions about Agorism. Though I'm already engaged in counter economics, I don't see how that's antithetical to political action. Obviously it's ineffective, but why not at least show up and shit on the ballot or something. I'd really appreciate you or one of the other Agorists here on YT to address this.
I can put this question in the form of a video if you'd like.
do you agree that MSM reports more on Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears' privacy than they do on a presidential candidate who gets most support from the military (admitted by CNN).. who breaks 1-day fundraising records.. who has signs all across America.. even garners the most popularity on the internet (the internet is pretty big)?
Don't you think something is wrong with that?
Can u make a video that supports change instead of trying to find ways to pick e-fights?
I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, and yes your right, you can't base Ron Paul's overall public popularity on internet straw poles. It dose show however the level of dedication Ron Paul supporters have. You'd be surprised what an extremely dedicated person can accomplish.
Those straw polls got a lot of people to consider Ron Paul as an actual viable candidate for presidency, and if that works to get people to consider him when they wouldn't have before, then that's fine my me.
How is using the internet not a viable source for how popular he truly is? The reason that most people don't know of him or his views is the lack of media coverage and basically being blocked out of debates. Most people go home and turn on their TVs in the evenings. What they see on TV is what they believe. They dont take the time to research things. It's sad. You plaster one person's face all over the TV and not another of course one will be more popular.
I agree. I think part of it is because a lot of voters are older people who don't use the internet.
And in my experience (although it could vary from person to person) a lot of people voting are just voting how their parents vote etc.
I think the BIGGEST factor though is that older people don't use the internet as much and they make up the majority of the voting population. That's my theory anyways.
Small huh.Hes got more grass root support.His supporters aren't corporations or the rich.He's getting small donation's compared to what the other candidates get,but who owns the machines and who's doing the counting?If thats retarded disregard!
The donations grew over 2x every quarter. If in 2012 he raises at least ten million in the first quarter, I have do doubt in my mind that the trend of doubling every quarter in donations will continue.
Yes, your logic is of course correct. I liked the video you were responding to because it says it SHOULD translate into a little mainstream media respect w/o being crazy. People are still coming out to vote for Ron Paul which may show there is at least minimum translation between the internet and "reality" beginning. That is what the mainstream media seems to be ignoring. But I also agree with you that the "paultards" who rant and rave about it are.... well... named correctly.
Finally, thank you for making this. I'm so sick of everyone in the libertarian and Ron Paul groups I post on thinking there is a giant media conspiracy to keep Ron Paul out of the spotlight.
Just because you've won a cell phone text message poll doesn't mean you'd win in an actual on the street poll.
Yeah because the same people who don't go on the internet to research the candidates they support also don't participate in text polls unless it is for American Idol, which is probably the only times they actually vote in their lives as well. If he was covered as much as the other candidates and still lost that's one thing, but he is barely covered at all. PS if you don't like Ron Paul, don't troll Ron Paul groups and you won't have to deal with said people.
Yeah, but their response to that is yet another conspiracy theory that the pollsters have all conspired to rig the scientific polls against Paul and/or to lie about the results.
He's popular in internet media but he's been taken off the menu of the MAINstream menu -- so there's NO contradictions here! And to answer your other question, Dr Paul measured 16% in Pennsylvania THIS WEEK (that's ONE in SIX republicans)! Imagine how popular he'd be if the mainstream media asked him anything other than "how'd you raise all that money in december Ron" or took time to discuss the ECONOMY or the WAR in the debates. Carl Cameron chose to ask "Are you electable?"
If you can't see that those corporate shills on Fox and CNN marginalized him & belittled him (on purpose) then you're no better than the rest of the fools in America. When did CNN or Fox show you what Benazir Bhutto said on INTERNATIONAL television regarding Osama Bin Laden being murdered -- who among the mainstream media told you what this Oxford grad had to say about Public Enemy #1?
your video is retarded. You didnt look at what he used googletrends for. You are confuse. The point of that video was the comparison of the internet media coverage compared to his internet popularity
If popularity to you means, the most mentions on the nightly news....The only thing that gets on the news nowadays is controversy, and pretty faces. Not real truth or facts. Truth is popular. Freedom is popular. That is what Ron Paul offers the people.
What exactly are you getting at? Your questions are too vague. Anyways I returned to check these comments only to link you a video. A candidates popularity can be measured by supporter enthusiasm.
well you need to define "actual popularity". RP has recieved 1,000,000 votes, holds the highest political fundraising day of $6.4M. Do you think Romney or Huckabee were "actually popular" to the nation when the races started?? Of course not. They didn't give RP media attention because his views and policies are contrary to everything the media uses to make profits i.e. LIES! The agenda of the media IS NOT the agenda of the people. RP is more popular than all the other candidates combined.
"All your base belong to us" is a gaming term. You might, but not all internet users play games. And that is the "fundamental, fatal flaw in your entire argument"
When you want information, where do you go? Newspapers, tv, and the INTERNET.
People will become dumber by watching your videos.
Corporate media does a grave injustice to american citizens. Thank god for the internet. Ron Paul is popular with the people who use thier head for something besides a hat rack.
I've concluded the internet likely has a higher percentage of "thinkers" than does the population as a whole. Those of us that study political ideas and policy are also a minority. That is why someone with sensible ideas is not selected through the process. Instead, those selected for political office tend to be more charismatic or popular; someone who seems like a leader for those who wish to be led. That selection process is not accomplished by the "thinkers" of our society.
I am a Ron Paul fan who understands, and has understood, everything you said in your video. Thanks for putting it out so clearly. Everyone wants to beleive that voting machines are rigged just because they are pissed off at the way things are. You people need to channel that anger into something other than screaming on youtube comment pages.
But people don't automatically get instant massive media coverage. It's a process of building popularity. In other words, a person gets a bit popular, the news rusn a story on person, that sparks some more popularity, and so on, until the person is huge and the coverage is correspondingly huge. Ron Paul received initial coverage in the news, and he built up some popularity, but he never caught on enough to warrant massive media coverage.
Who said anything about instant? It's funny how you the think the media process and it's backing of one individual or another is a somewhat natural process. So innocent.
The initial coverage that Ron Paul received was no different than what he receives now, and what little popularity he has gained has been DESPITE the negative and unfair treatment he has received from the media.
Are you suggesting the process that got George Bush elected then re-elected is a fair one?
Your mistake is thinking unfair treatment by the media only applies to Ron Paul. All candidates get unfair treatment by the media. Paul had many good and fair interviews and good stories. And, he has also taken a few shots, just like all candidates.
But, I was hoping to hear a conspiracy theory about how government and corporations have teamed together to centrally control the media. Then I was going to ask you for evidence. I guess you saw it coming and backed out.
Hey Dack, your sitting in front of a computer with the wealth of all the worlds knowledge at your fingertips and you still need this explained to you?
If any of you brainiacs did any research before getting into debates you wouldn't ask me to school you. School yourself. Instead of calling anyone that doesn't agree with you a ...wait...it's coming...conspiracy theorist.
I say the media is used to sway public opinion (politics,advertising,religion), and that makes me a conspiracy nut? Nice.
No my friend it is a different kind of unfair treatment. McCain's/Clinton's/Obama's unfair treatment is that from time to time someone will dig up a scandal and it will be exaggerated and plastered in the news for days, which is hurtful but also leads to much more name recognition and interest in the politician. Ron Paul get this kind of treatment as well, but they keep the mere MENTIONING of him to a minimum so that you can still have people on the street not even knowing he is running.
Ron Paul is a 2% candidate because he has a small legion of fans but gets little real attention from both the left and right media.
It's not all media's fault as the Paul campaign relied too much on the Paulistas and did little or nothing to help themselves.
I support Paul because he is the one guy out there with the right message. I have no illusions that he can win or that he could accomplish ANYTHING if he did.
I'm just sad that individual freedom is such an unpopular idea these days...
You hit the nail on the head. Freedom is not popular, thought it is more popular than some might have thought as Paul brought to light. But I don't think freedom has EVER been or ever will be very popular. It's always going to be a minority of people. When a free society is set up, it's because just a few people take charge and set one up. I don't see freedom as ever being popular among the masses.
I agree with what you said and I'm a Ron Paul fan. But I believe his candiacy has educated so many people about libertarian views. So I don't see why you're sick hearing about him when he is educating people which you seem to care about. He has also helped people see the bias in the media. Hopefully, like you say, in 20 years people will use the internet and not mass media for news because the medium is the message. Because the internet is unfiltered you get the clearest view possible.
He's isn't as popular with the general population because the general population lets what they hear through the news (usually only one news source also) to make their decision. If the news media covered Ron Paul as much as the other candidates that WOULD translate to more popularity in the general populace. What Ron Paul supporters like myself want is for one of 2 things. 1)People start researching candidates on their own or 2)That the media covers Paul more so those who don't get to see him.
Ok, but that can be said for anyone. Why SHOULD they cover Ron Paul as much as someone else that is more popular in the polls and therefore the public has more interest is seeing? News stations are in the business to make money by giving viewers what they want to see. You want them to sacrifice profits in order to "fair." That's socialistic thinking.
These polls you speak of are just as misleading as the media that uses them for your entertainment.
Paul was/is left out of many polls. Not even listed in the polls. Corporate owned news media intentionally left him out of debates, and when he does get to debate, they intentionally direct biased and hurtful remarks towards him. They intentionally don't report his victories.
How can the public make an intelligent decision about this man in light of this "fair and balanced" reporting?
Solid logical arguments are for fag-headed retards. Only gay dorks don't want Ron Paul to have his own TV show. You probably watch Oprah. She's fugly. I bet you play with dolls. I don't. I vote for Ron Paul.
The general populace gets all their thoughts from the media. I like Ron Paul and I cannot say that much about politicians. Sure he has his flaws but I like the old man.
Trying to beat the system through its own game is almost impossible to do.
I'm not coming down on you, sir, but why are you so concerned with people's opinions on Ron Paul's popularity status. If they're wrong, let them be wrong. Since you are an individual who seems to be so much into logic, people will logically be displeased with how their candidate is treated if he/she is not treated as they see fit. The important thing is that these Ron Paul supporters are collectively helping an immense wave of an idea revive that which was part of an American ideal: Freedom.
I get sick of hearing about Ron Paul, frankly. People are wasting time and energy supporting a man who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected instead of focusing on educating people about the real ideas behind freedom(not just as some cheesy, emotional buzzword, but the non-aggression principle, natural rights, etc.) so that something worthwhile in the future can be achieved.
No offense, but Ron Paul is doing a lot more educating about freedom than you. He couldn't have had as much influence without taking part in the political process. Simply writing a book or essay about eliminating the Fed would have reached very few people. Anarchism will NEVER be achieved. The end justifies the means.
It's rare that I really hear him talk about freedom in any sense other than using it to incite emotion. He blabbers on about the constitution a lot, but thats not the same as talking about freedom.
I can't even imagine what makes you think "Anarchism will NEVER be achieved," when several anarchic societies have existed throughout history.
And what happened to them? The natural evolution of the development of a state. So sure one can EXIST but they're always going to be ephemeral so there's not point in doing it in the first place. Might as well save the trouble and set up a state with a strongly worded Constitution to protect a decent amount of liberty.
Note also that I said a strongly worded Constitution. There can be a Constitution devised and worded to be more preventative of diminishing liberty. The U.S. constution is not perfect, and none will ever be.
"Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion." -Ron Paul. Sounds like he's talking about freedom to me.
Now, you may say after reading that statement that he's contradicting himself by running for office. But Paul is a pragmatist and a realist. Zero government coercion is not possible. The best one can hope for, therefore, is its minimization.
I'm confident that Ron Paul realizes that he has extremely slim chance at winning the election (that's why he's not running as an independent). However, what makes him so politically attractive to me and to so many others(on- or off-line) is the fact that he actually is continuing his campaign to spread his message more than anything else now that he has the attention of so many. For 31+ yrs. he has championed the constitutional position. He has an audience now, and they are becoming (continued)
(continued) politically active towards the ideas that he has stood behind. Look into the how many intellectual individuals that he has affected and are now running for congress or the senate so that Libertarian ideas may have a much larger voice and impact. Believe that "something worthwhile" is happening, sir.
Good point. But Xomniverse here wants all or nothing. Anarchism or nothing. But the fact is, if those who want freedom don't participate in the political process, only those that hate freedom will. Then we'll end up in a much more oppressive situation. His advocacy that freedom lovers don't participate in the political process is highly irrational. It's like advocating that only criminals get guns.
So, we should just give up instead? What do you propose to fix our situation? You know I hear alot of people saying these same things but no one EVER has a feasible ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION! This is the ultimate APATHY that has led our nation down this path in the first place, and more apathy is not the solution! You don't think a political action will make it better? THEN THINK UP ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT INSTEAD OF JUST COMPLAINING OR RIDICULING OTHERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING! End
I didn't say it's not the only way to acheive goals. I'm saying it's not something that should be discouraged for people who love freedom. Discourage it for statists all you want.
By the way, I'm familiar with "agorism" and it has never accomplished a thing. What counter economics are you participating in and what is it down to reduce the size of the state?
Anyone whose income isn't taxed by the state has reduced it by some small part but NOT paying taxes. And the more people who do it, the bigger impact it'll have.
That hasn't been shown to be true in practice. The underground economy (untaxed economy) has been growing in the U.S. for a long time, and the state has become more powerful. The economy that is taxed has grown along with it.
I'm sure you're like all online agorists. You don't participate in counter economics. It's just a state of mind of no consequence to the world. Not an agorist yesterday, agorist today, and nothing has changed in the world but the contents of your mind. Yet you condemn people for actually DOING something, by using politics.
It's worked so far. I'm relatively free. That's all one can ever be, is relatively free. "The path to liberty" to you is apparently some nirvana where you're completely free. Not gonna happen.
You're right we can never be totally free, but by not even trying we don't CONTINUE to have the same freedoms, we slowly lose them. It is in the constant strive to STAY free and acquire MORE freedoms that we REMAIN relatively free. We have ceased to strive for this and so we have slowly and methodically lost relative freedoms. The answer to this is not to continue to not do anything, hence continuing the problem, but to put renewed effort into the striving!
And not to worry about a technical breach of the "non-aggression principle," which is dubious principle in the first place. XOmniverse is terrified of sullying his hands and becoming impure and condemns other libertarians for impurity as well, by engaging in politics. In the meanwhile, he accomplishes nothing but obtaining the vague contentment that one feels when he thinks he is purer than thou.
I agree with you completely and have been aware of this fact myself. But I have also noted, without too much proof... that internet users in general search out things on their own. This is quite obvious because usually or again generally non-internet users prefer to have "tv" search out things and decide what they want to watch. Thus meaning that it is possible that they are more susceptible to influence by media.
So, with this in mind... it could be argued that internet users being more individualistic come to a conclusion... The same proportion of non-internet users may come to the same conclusion given that he is shoved in their faces as much as other candidates.
FYI: LeeGeeGee is an admitted professional agitator disrupting discussions by calling people pedophiles, etc. Causing defensive backlash that degrades political discussions to worthless.
FYI: minivanjack, is a liar. I've never claimed such a thing. You're and the other conspiracy theorists are the ones claiming I'm a professional agitator. You're really a kooky individual if you think someone would pay someone to come here and criticize your video, old man.
The point was already made on the graphs of differences between internet popularity and actual street popularity.The msm coverage percent for 3 cand. was much higher.Tho Ron Pauls msm coverage was virtually single didget coverage his popularity percent raised at the same rate as the others without msm.So the point is if RP had the same msm coverage as the others there would be no question who's street popularity would be highest along with the internet as well.So we should use the msm polls?
Your point is flawed,most of the nation didn't.Know who Barak Obama was Until The media showed Obama girl made that made him popular, oh wait on the internet and the MSM.
Most supporters of Ron Paul are waiting until the convention to vote.
He's unpopular with the general population,because the MSM doesn't make money off of him.Think about this where do you think Hitlary,Obuma,or McCain would be without their news coverage?It's all set up to be a popularity contest,and who is going to make.The biggest ratings and money Ron Paul was shut out,cause he doesn't support the corporate agenda.Same with Mike Gravel,as soon as he started to duke it out with Hitlery his media coverage destroyed.The 3 tier candidates are paid to put on a show
Another point I made, which was related to your point about "having it both ways" was that if the internet was a true gauge of him being more popular than all the other candidates, then there would be no need for him being in the MSM in order to boost his popularity. In other words, there would be no need to complain about the MSM.
And get this, he claims because I dispute his video that I'm not really a Paul supporter but someone on a covert operation sent from some elite organization (Centcom is one he mentioned) to "agitate" against Ron Paul.
Ron Paul 2012! end the Federal reserve, end all wars!
migu9999 4 months ago
YOu answered your own questions on popularity. MEDIA COVERAGE AND KNOWLEDGE OF SOMEONES NAME TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT TRUE POPULARITY! Ask the question, NOT "who is Ron Paul" BUT "Who is Osama Bin Laden" AND YOUR WHOLE theory is shot to shit. Thus your model of popularity would insinuate that Osama Bin Laden is more popular then Ron Paul.
You sir are a moron. Kill yourself now, I dont want you wasting anymore of my oxygen.
mcapps1 2 years ago
Well, aren't you a charming fellow? Should everyone you disagree with commit suicide, or just me?
XOmniverse 2 years ago 2
@XOmniverse first off, this is my second vid of yours that i have viewed, i subbed. great channel.
but more people use the internet mediums for info than watch msm. RP may be very popular and not on msm and still popular with actual population. AOL poll may have gotten, obviously internet savy people, a large portion of votes, bc he is popular.
US soldiers think he's good enough to vote for and donate to too. largest in one day! peace.
iamundergrace 1 year ago
I watched. I disagree with you also. I guess I'll have to commit suicide too!
jabakerart 1 year ago
All ur philosophy r belong to us!
LordShivasServant 2 years ago
exactly ron paul is statistically insignificant.
jaktigmidblinx 2 years ago
You have an excellent point. But I think the media did avoid him.
kelborn24 2 years ago
Here is an idea and if it sounds good please forward it on. Every RP support goes and gets part-time work (baby sitting, mowing lawns, pizza delivery, use your talents and gifts) and saves it until the race for 2012 starts then donates 50% and uses the other 50% for travel to rallies for RP. When we donate that money it needs to be on a single day. The media will have no choice to notice RP if we can donate $10 million or more in a single day.
Tastysodiumchloride 2 years ago
All of the major media corporations that cover political events are owned by Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch and General Electric. Thus, there is nary a diversity between the media outlets that determine the popularity of a political candidate. If It always comes down to Rep. vs. Dem., then of course someone who so strongly alienates the former and latters point of view, is going to be 'less popular' in non internet arenas. Or am i mistaken?
fungku777 2 years ago
rabid retards thats a bit far but you would have to agree ron paul got unfair time in the mainstream media
harryman11 3 years ago
hey XOmniverse
you make some grate valid points thumbs up for it. i just wanted to throw out a comment of ron pouls campain have ben totaly nullifyed over here in erupa
iv ben following this pressident campaine alot from over here becours it is being played out like a game of chess
yall need lyndon laruche
glasseay 3 years ago
I realized that Ron Paul was a crackpot long ago... His "doom & gloom" look at the economy is starting to get tiring. His supporters are all basically bandwagon boys looking for support for their radical viewpoints.
EvenSteven2004 3 years ago
The doom and gloom look at the economy is actually very valid.
teewillis1981 3 years ago
And do you really suport anarchism?,and what issues do you have with Dr.ron paul?.And if you do support anarchy youre delusional living in a pseudo intellectaul dreamworld.Like communism it sounds good in theory but fails in practice,and if it where ever implemented(anarchy)you would not survive long.
usernameted1 3 years ago
Please lets do a poll,lets ask all the Mcain/Obama/Clinton voters or supporters if they can identify or name any of the policys/voting record of there canidate?versus ron paul voters.The non ron paul voters would only be able to name either one fringe issue of non importance;gay marrige,abortion.... or none at all,so why would they vote for that person that they really no nothing about??????
usernameted1 3 years ago
Of course this is not true, but look how easily I just used flawed logic to support my argument.
A simple (although costly) solution to the question would to be to poll 2 thousand US citizens and find out how many know a little about Ron Paul and how many of them support him...
FalseShadowx 3 years ago
Also, although its true that the Internet could be biased... why is it SO biased in his favor? If there are tons of Paul supporters online, why aren't there even more Obama, and McCain supporters? Maybe Obama and McCain supporters dont have the internet? One could even argue that most supporters of the other candidate are too stupid to use the internet, and only the smart people who support Ron Paul are can figure it out.
FalseShadowx 3 years ago
He makes a good point but just because you cant prove that there are a proportional amount of Paul supporters in the real world doesnt mean its not true
What about:
The supporters who raided the Giuliani and other's rallies with more people than them?
The fact that he raised more money from veterans than anyone else?
The applause in many of his debates?
The people who showed up to see him on The Colbert Report, where the staff said they never see that many people even for huge celebrities?
FalseShadowx 3 years ago
If the TV and news media are blocking out Ron Paul the public becomes unaware of him (they are dumbed down), therefore asking someone on the street does not represent the true picture.
kanelalee 3 years ago
i think got the idea wrong what the video was showing the increase or decrease of popularity and hence i dont think its a flaw it was very valid argument , if you see its a trend not and the reason why everyone knows obama and hillary now is because of media coverage where as before that no one knew them and ron paul was moe popular, now obv both hilary and obama are popular
vinaiah 3 years ago
If you get your news from a corporate media station, you are being fed. FACT
If you are not interested in your freedom, and you would like to pay even more taxes - then Ron Paul is not your choice.
I have a simple question for XOmniverse: Are you aware that the "major" news channels are corporate owned?
I beg you; please get in touch with reality, sir. Thank you.
connoisseurodg 3 years ago
*yawn* Another RP fan making idiotic assumptions about me. Look at some of my other videos and then make assertions about me.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
haha what are these people doing when theyre not lecturing anarchists on the merits of less robbery? these guys have as much philo and econ theory for support as moderate conservatives...wait a minute...
Cheimison 3 years ago
I think it's a mistake for libertarians not to support Ron Paul. Rothbard believed it was good strategy to make alliances sometimes even though we did not agree with everything they believed in. I am a market anarchist myself but I realize that Ron Paul is helping to educate a lot of people about libertarianism, what it wrong with that? In the end, if people are not educated about freedom there will not be an market anarchist society.
jackson32 3 years ago
I'm not saying Ron Paul is very popular outside the internet, but he's not exactly unknown either, he was averaging about 7% in the primaries, and that is with a lot less coverage than the front runners, and much less favorable coverage. Also this was in the warmongering republican race, if it came to a general election, he would be well over 15%.
His libertarianism means it would be hard for him to get a lot more than that.
jackson32 3 years ago
For great justice.
fortunatus 3 years ago
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Ron Paul has more internet action than mainstream media....(guessing your not one ) they are bias. Ron Paul is getting more and more attention than you would think.
imo2256 3 years ago
No shit sherlock? But because the mainstream media wont let anyone see him speak or debate, the internet is all that we have. There is no flaw in his argument, nor does he say his overall popularity extend the bounds of the internet. The current polls show him as being not popular at all. We dont need your stupid blabbering to tell us what we already know. Go get some sunshine dork boy!
EntropyPressStAt 3 years ago
Ron Paul is a tyrant anyways.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
I wanted to say thank you for this vid. Yes I do support Ron all the way. However I don't want to look dumb posting a video that is not quite logical. One thing I do disagree with is the assumption (if there is one) that the media is not bias .. or is not hiding Ron Paul news. I can provide you with many first hand accounts and youtube vids about important ron paul news that was not covered. News such as the 400 RP supporters who were outside of a McCain speech (ignored completely) ...
LadyJadeLight 3 years ago 2
Quit being a tool for big brother!! Read the constitution, learn about the history behind it and I guarantee you'll quit your these lame videos.
007bruclee 3 years ago
Why do Ron Paul fans assume anyone who doesn't believe Ron Paul is Jesus is some sort of uneducated bumpkin interested in maintaining the status quo?
Read some Lysander Spooner before preaching the constitution to an anarchist.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
You being a non-voted, maybe you should be reading Lysander Spooner, who defended the act of voting as self defense.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
I don't assume you are.
If you love your guy so much, why don't you marry him?
Why do Lysander Spooner fans assume anyone who doesn't believe Lysander is Jesus is some sort of Ron Paul fan? Sounds silly doesn't it?
Although I am a RP fan.
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
I don't assume that. I suggested that he educate himself on the anarchist position regarding the constitution instead of accusing me of not understanding the constitution.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I voted for Ron Paul and as an anarchist anarchocapitalist libertarian like yourself, I must say that you are pretty much owning some of the more cult-like Paul followers. You're made of win, man.
Personally I feel that a slight majority of Paul supporters are familiar with Rothbard, Konkin, Spooner, etc. but the rest are either 9/11 truthers or people who are STILL saying "Google Ron Paul" instead of telling people about (like you said) natural rights and liberty.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
"Sample size is important, but you don't have a truly random sample either. Without that, your math is completely useless.
Facts are facts, lol."
Bump.
It amazes me there are still people ignorant enough to actually insist that Ron Paul got a fair shake from the mainstream media.
Whats wrong with you? Jerry Days videos point was that the MSM completely shafted Ron Paul. The argument in that video was NOT "how popular" Ron Paul is.
This video puts forth a strawman argument.
Thumbs down.
oneredspanky 3 years ago
I don't recall ever saying the mainstream media gave him a fair shake. I just said that internet popularity is not an accurate measurement of popularity among the population as a whole, and that Ron Paul is more popular on the internet.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
We agree. That's not any reason to not support him though. Who will you vote for?
Following your lead you are actually towing the line for the status quo by trivializing these statistics. Who do you think uses these kinds of tracking tools? It's called Google TRENDS, it tracks behavior. We're being tracked from outside our meme by our government. I think Ron recognizes this and will work to ease the pressure a bit more than any of the others. That's why he gets my vote.
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
NOBODY gets a fair shake from the media. Ron Paul is nothing special in that regard.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
oneredspanky,
I totally agree with Ron Paul on everything that needs to happen in this government, and if I vote, I plan on writing that man's name in. (Look at my favorites. They're 70% Ron Paul videos) I KNOW he didn't get a fair shake in the MSM. Not even close. But the straw polls do not represent RANDOM samples of the American population
luckyday24 3 years ago
For a simple random sample from a large population, the maximum margin of error is a simple re-expression of the sample size n. The numerators of these equations are rounded to two decimal places.
According to a 2007 Harris Poll ,178 millions of adults go online in the US. ( ~ 80% )
Now lets assume, that only 10 % of these use the Internet for News Coverage, then the margin of Error is only 0.00003 Percent. ( See next Post )
allymetoo 3 years ago
So your conclusion is completely wrong, since in Poll statistics, I don't that large sample amount to get a 99% confidence Level.
Now, even, if my sample Size would be only 1 million, I still get a 99% Confidence Level using these simple basic.
statistics.
Then you say, that Internet Usage hasn't gotten to the Level yet, may be in 20 Years. Uuuh.
Now instead of saying: Facts are facts, and stuff, use your brain , Man!
allymetoo 3 years ago
GIGO. You got some fancy math there, but it don't apply pal. Sample size is important, but you don't have a truly random sample either. Without that, your math is completely useless.
Facts are facts, lol.
luckyday24 3 years ago
You're right internet popularity does not equal general public popularity. I will assert people who use the internet for their information tend to be more savvy than the general msm spoonfed Joe Schmoes. They get it with RP. The brainwashed populace eats all the crap handed to them and won't lift a finger to pick their teeth.
If RP got as much face time and ass kissing on the boob tube as an Obama or a McCain he'd be a shoe-in. The media is biased and lies. THAT'S the point you're missing.
bottleslingguy 3 years ago 2
that's true, but I think (might be wrong) that XOmniverse was mostly going for discrediting the use of GoogleTrends and whatever polls to say that RP really is popular.
I doubt that he would disagree with you considering that Ron Paul got 4000 some hits versus McDouche's 100,000 over the same time period on the MSM. That'll be a blow to anyone's campaign.
luckyday24 3 years ago
THAT says a lot, though. Then it starts the slippery slope once you go there. Then all kinds of shit falls into place which is more important than any of this statistical spaghetti. Imagine if he was treated as sychophantically as Brian Williams did just recently with Obama the Placebo? MSM is a very strong influence on hypnotized people. THAT'S what we should be focusing on instead of muddying "the waters (with technicalities) to make them look deep.".
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
Dude, figure out what you're going to say, then SAY IT! I couldn't even stick around to watch all of it because you're so clearly one of these people that just likes to drag things out just to be the center of attention. Consolidate, man.
Radicaltruth13 3 years ago
It's only a four minute video. Do you have no attention span at all?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
You make good points here.
Darganot 3 years ago
Ron Paul is a brilliant man who knows his stuff.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution!
3krazykatz 3 years ago 2
If he knows his stuff, why does he oppose immigration?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
XOmniverse, great vid, I agree with what u say but I just had to set the record straight on this comment. Paul doesn't oppose immigration, or illegal immigration. What he opposes are the incentives that bring them over and keep them over. Specifically, welfare for illegal immigrants, and easy citizenship. He says that because of current economic conditions they are the scapegoat.
But after reading some Rothbard followed by some Konkin, I am starting to distance myself from the RP Revolution.
luckyday24 3 years ago
Oh wow... you didn't need the whole video to say this. Its called sampling. Poll's such as gallup strive to sample the population as randomly as possible. The internet is extremely popular amongst libertarians, and so is Ron Paul. Thus a sample of a million internet users is certain to be less acurate then a more random three thousand person gallup sample. Many commenters here need a statistics class or three.
shanewins 3 years ago
Ron Paul supporters outside of the Colbert Report.
watch?v=CS62aGQ852M
freedomman121 3 years ago
btw the major tv stations pretty much say whats popular thers your major flaw hahahah
GreenTolene 3 years ago
i agree you are out of touch with the america.internet is the future/ google stats dont lie and every major buisness uses it.
GreenTolene 3 years ago
watch?v=9p4FJxOeXrQ
freedomman121 3 years ago
I lean anarcho-capitalist myself, but support Ron Paul anyway as a step in the right direction.
To support your thesis, I'll add that the average Ron Paul supporter (like myself) will probably Google "Ron Paul" three times a day, seven days a week, just to get the news that the MSM won't report on TV. This "inflates" the appearance of his GoogleTrends support. Supporters of other candidates don't need to do this.
My theory's problem is that Ron Paul creams Mike Gravel on GoogleTrends....
autofyrsto 3 years ago
McCain is in bush back pocket... Ron Paul is being Buried by media...
JustASpaz 3 years ago 2
I'm sorry Shawn, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.
freedomman121 3 years ago 4
How do you explain the THOUSANDS of real, live supporters at Ron Paul's rallies? How do explain his receiving more donations from real, live, active duty military personnel in Q3 and Q4 than any other candidate? He received more from them in Q4 than ALL of the remaining candidates combined! How do you explain his receiving more in total donations in Q4 than any other Republican candidate? How do explain his new book shooting to #13 on Amazon's best seller list yesterday?
freedomman121 3 years ago 2
The same way it can be explained that 20,000 people showing up at Metallica concerts. Paul is a rock star politician. He has a small (in proportion to the whole population) but dedicated group of followers. Just as a band's fans will rush out and buy a new album when it comes out, or go to see them in concert, so will Paul's fans. You can't conclude from that that that Metallica or Ron Paul are popular among the general population.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
I can't go for that. I have found that all around my neighborhood, there were people of all ages, old young black white hispanic mormon etc. who are into Ron Paul, and had been made to believe they were in the minority. Everyone started talking to each other and putting signs in their front yard, and it became obvious that we were not in the minority. And I live in AZ. Most
AZ reps actually despise McCain because of his wussy boarder issues, among other things.
freedomman121 3 years ago
Ron Paul's new book is currently the #1 best seller on Amazon. That's a lot of fucking books...
freedomman121 3 years ago
Yes it is, and he's getting rich. Not that he wasn't doing ok already with his portfolio of gold stocks, reputed to be over $2 million worth. Congratulations to him.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
And deservedly so. It's a great little book. I got my copy a few days ago. He has worked tirelessly to try to turn this country around, and this book will help to spread the word.
But, my point in that post was to make one more point that refutes your "rock star" claim. That's not just a handful of wild teenage internet freaks pushing that book to #1. America knows it's in trouble, and wants change. Real change. And Ron Paul's it.
freedomman121 3 years ago
Another point is that Ron Paul delegates are taking over in many republican conventions. In Nevada the McSame delegates panicked and walked out when they realized they were outnumbered and out fire-powered. Ron Paul delegates have made strides in other states such as Montana and Washington state.
This shit is real as a heart attack, it's not just the internet, and it's not going away.
freedomman121 3 years ago
The guy in tha video is a GOOF from Vancouver B.C. VOTE RON PAUL
birdcx1 3 years ago 2
No, I'm not.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Who cares. He is the best choice we have currently. Support Ron Paul!
ementele 3 years ago 3
I think you're a little wrong on this one. The graph showing the popularity of ron paul on the media does not represent the views of the public, it represents the popularity of ron paul on the media. The content of the media id not chosen by the general population.
The internet graph represents what people CHOOSE to watch, you cant choose to watch ron paul on the media because the media control the content.
it shows what people are choosing to watch, and they coose ron paul.
AnHonestLiving 3 years ago 2
I guess your point is that the internet doesn't influence the general public. Your right. But I think we all can agree that the media, tee vee for instance, does. Which has been our complaint, Ron Paul hasn't received the media attention that the on line popularity would dictate.
Boomer1949 3 years ago 3
I would say that you have a point, he does rule when it comes to the internet. But as far as non-internet popularity, we see that Ron Paul has about 20,000 meet up groups across the country. He did well in many of the primaries such as Nevada, Montana, Alaska, Maine, and the recent Pennsylvania. I can't wait to see the turn out for the march in DC that is planned. So he's done pretty good despite the fact that the media gave him little attention.
tvan42 3 years ago 2
Such a poor production value did not help your lame and boring presentation. Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to restore freedoms that has been slowly taken away over the years. He supports many of the libertarian principals of self government. We don't want big brother to take care of us. Don't waste your energy with this garbage.
VOTE RON PAUL!
seanybabe913 3 years ago
"Such a poor production value did not help your lame and boring presentation."
Ad hominem.
The rest of your comment doesn't address anything I actually said in the video.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Just calling out the fallacy doesn't work with the normies ;)
btw I do agree with you in this video, but have serious questions about Agorism. Though I'm already engaged in counter economics, I don't see how that's antithetical to political action. Obviously it's ineffective, but why not at least show up and shit on the ballot or something. I'd really appreciate you or one of the other Agorists here on YT to address this.
I can put this question in the form of a video if you'd like.
Darganot 3 years ago
How can you say voting is ineffective? Obviously voting decides who goes in office. No two office holders are identically dangerous to liberty.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
Voting is ineffective because I can understand Geo-Politics or domestic policy all I want and still be at the whim of the masses.
Go back under your bridge and leave this thread alone.
Darganot 3 years ago
wtf you stupid American should elect ron Paul not some Israel puppet.enough killing People to please Israel.
i swear if he losses any American i see i will spit on his face.
WAKE the FUCK UP your country is evil cant you see it stop eating Mac Donald and watching TV, and do something to elect this man
swordpeak 3 years ago
Of course the American government is evil. I can't say it's reasonable to label a piece of land evil.
Also, like many of the other comments, you didn't actually address the point I made in the video.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I agree with swordpeak the USA needs to WAKE THA FUCK UP.
birdcx1 3 years ago 2
well XOmniverse,
do you agree that MSM reports more on Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears' privacy than they do on a presidential candidate who gets most support from the military (admitted by CNN).. who breaks 1-day fundraising records.. who has signs all across America.. even garners the most popularity on the internet (the internet is pretty big)?
Don't you think something is wrong with that?
Can u make a video that supports change instead of trying to find ways to pick e-fights?
Richey716 3 years ago
Maybe you should look at the videos I've posted before assuming I don't.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
PAUL S PEOPLE OR THE MOST INFORMED
mialst 3 years ago
I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, and yes your right, you can't base Ron Paul's overall public popularity on internet straw poles. It dose show however the level of dedication Ron Paul supporters have. You'd be surprised what an extremely dedicated person can accomplish.
Those straw polls got a lot of people to consider Ron Paul as an actual viable candidate for presidency, and if that works to get people to consider him when they wouldn't have before, then that's fine my me.
MrPillowFoot 3 years ago
How is using the internet not a viable source for how popular he truly is? The reason that most people don't know of him or his views is the lack of media coverage and basically being blocked out of debates. Most people go home and turn on their TVs in the evenings. What they see on TV is what they believe. They dont take the time to research things. It's sad. You plaster one person's face all over the TV and not another of course one will be more popular.
Charlie8417 3 years ago
I agree. I think part of it is because a lot of voters are older people who don't use the internet.
And in my experience (although it could vary from person to person) a lot of people voting are just voting how their parents vote etc.
I think the BIGGEST factor though is that older people don't use the internet as much and they make up the majority of the voting population. That's my theory anyways.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
How do you explain Ron Paul campaign contributions being more than any other candidate?
slimjim006 3 years ago
A small but very dedicated campaign.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Small huh.Hes got more grass root support.His supporters aren't corporations or the rich.He's getting small donation's compared to what the other candidates get,but who owns the machines and who's doing the counting?If thats retarded disregard!
slimjim006 3 years ago 2
watch?v=G-unBftA9-A
slimjim006 3 years ago
The donations grew over 2x every quarter. If in 2012 he raises at least ten million in the first quarter, I have do doubt in my mind that the trend of doubling every quarter in donations will continue.
MrPillowFoot 3 years ago
Yes, your logic is of course correct. I liked the video you were responding to because it says it SHOULD translate into a little mainstream media respect w/o being crazy. People are still coming out to vote for Ron Paul which may show there is at least minimum translation between the internet and "reality" beginning. That is what the mainstream media seems to be ignoring. But I also agree with you that the "paultards" who rant and rave about it are.... well... named correctly.
LibertyOrBust 3 years ago
Another sheep video
debbiemaey71352 3 years ago
Finally, thank you for making this. I'm so sick of everyone in the libertarian and Ron Paul groups I post on thinking there is a giant media conspiracy to keep Ron Paul out of the spotlight.
Just because you've won a cell phone text message poll doesn't mean you'd win in an actual on the street poll.
BWF89 3 years ago
Yeah because the same people who don't go on the internet to research the candidates they support also don't participate in text polls unless it is for American Idol, which is probably the only times they actually vote in their lives as well. If he was covered as much as the other candidates and still lost that's one thing, but he is barely covered at all. PS if you don't like Ron Paul, don't troll Ron Paul groups and you won't have to deal with said people.
angpetru 3 years ago
Yeah, but their response to that is yet another conspiracy theory that the pollsters have all conspired to rig the scientific polls against Paul and/or to lie about the results.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
The Ron Paul revolution is a sham from beginning to end. They are trying to make liberty in the context of tyranny. It won't ever work.
AnarchoCapitalist200 3 years ago
Hey Dude,
He's popular in internet media but he's been taken off the menu of the MAINstream menu -- so there's NO contradictions here! And to answer your other question, Dr Paul measured 16% in Pennsylvania THIS WEEK (that's ONE in SIX republicans)! Imagine how popular he'd be if the mainstream media asked him anything other than "how'd you raise all that money in december Ron" or took time to discuss the ECONOMY or the WAR in the debates. Carl Cameron chose to ask "Are you electable?"
TruthJockey 3 years ago
If you can't see that those corporate shills on Fox and CNN marginalized him & belittled him (on purpose) then you're no better than the rest of the fools in America. When did CNN or Fox show you what Benazir Bhutto said on INTERNATIONAL television regarding Osama Bin Laden being murdered -- who among the mainstream media told you what this Oxford grad had to say about Public Enemy #1?
So who is REALLY telling the truth buddy?
TruthJockey 3 years ago
your video is retarded. You didnt look at what he used googletrends for. You are confuse. The point of that video was the comparison of the internet media coverage compared to his internet popularity
VoteYourConsience 3 years ago
If popularity to you means, the most mentions on the nightly news....The only thing that gets on the news nowadays is controversy, and pretty faces. Not real truth or facts. Truth is popular. Freedom is popular. That is what Ron Paul offers the people.
spudea 3 years ago
Is creationism true? Are exported immigrants free?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
What exactly are you getting at? Your questions are too vague. Anyways I returned to check these comments only to link you a video. A candidates popularity can be measured by supporter enthusiasm.
watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ
spudea 3 years ago
well you need to define "actual popularity". RP has recieved 1,000,000 votes, holds the highest political fundraising day of $6.4M. Do you think Romney or Huckabee were "actually popular" to the nation when the races started?? Of course not. They didn't give RP media attention because his views and policies are contrary to everything the media uses to make profits i.e. LIES! The agenda of the media IS NOT the agenda of the people. RP is more popular than all the other candidates combined.
spudea 3 years ago
Your argument is completely wrong.
"All your base belong to us" is a gaming term. You might, but not all internet users play games. And that is the "fundamental, fatal flaw in your entire argument"
When you want information, where do you go? Newspapers, tv, and the INTERNET.
People will become dumber by watching your videos.
StrictlyHerbal 3 years ago
"All your base belong to us" is an internet meme. You'd really have to be an idiot not to know that.
cujothekitten 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
Durgeofcerberus 3 years ago
Corporate media does a grave injustice to american citizens. Thank god for the internet. Ron Paul is popular with the people who use thier head for something besides a hat rack.
eekdog2005 3 years ago
I've concluded the internet likely has a higher percentage of "thinkers" than does the population as a whole. Those of us that study political ideas and policy are also a minority. That is why someone with sensible ideas is not selected through the process. Instead, those selected for political office tend to be more charismatic or popular; someone who seems like a leader for those who wish to be led. That selection process is not accomplished by the "thinkers" of our society.
riaamaan 3 years ago
I am a Ron Paul fan who understands, and has understood, everything you said in your video. Thanks for putting it out so clearly. Everyone wants to beleive that voting machines are rigged just because they are pissed off at the way things are. You people need to channel that anger into something other than screaming on youtube comment pages.
comicfl 3 years ago
XO Your whole argument attempts to put the cart before the horse.
How does one get "known"? Through massive media coverage.
How does one get massive media coverage? By sucking up to the corporations that own the media.
Of course Ron Paul isn't as "known" as the rest of the candidates. No big shocker there.
The internet is a truer representation of what people WANT, whereas corporate media TELLS US WHAT WERE SUPPOSED TO WANT, based on corporate agendas.
Truth is Freedom.
NeatguyJones 3 years ago 2
But people don't automatically get instant massive media coverage. It's a process of building popularity. In other words, a person gets a bit popular, the news rusn a story on person, that sparks some more popularity, and so on, until the person is huge and the coverage is correspondingly huge. Ron Paul received initial coverage in the news, and he built up some popularity, but he never caught on enough to warrant massive media coverage.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
Who said anything about instant? It's funny how you the think the media process and it's backing of one individual or another is a somewhat natural process. So innocent.
The initial coverage that Ron Paul received was no different than what he receives now, and what little popularity he has gained has been DESPITE the negative and unfair treatment he has received from the media.
Are you suggesting the process that got George Bush elected then re-elected is a fair one?
Truth is Freedom
NeatguyJones 3 years ago
Your mistake is thinking unfair treatment by the media only applies to Ron Paul. All candidates get unfair treatment by the media. Paul had many good and fair interviews and good stories. And, he has also taken a few shots, just like all candidates.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
Who said I think Ron Paul is only one treated unfairly? Again you put words in my mouth. Read my posts before you comment on them.
Ron Paul is an EXAMPLE of how the media can be used to further a corporate agenda - or protect it as is the case here.
It has happened to many others and will continue to happen to many more as long as people like yourself allow it to happen.
To compare the media's treatment of Ron Paul to say someone like Mcpain is absurd. Who's in bed with the arms makers?
NeatguyJones 3 years ago
What corporate agenda is that?
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
and with that eye opening demonstration of your understanding of the world I think I'll just leave it at that lol.
NeatguyJones 3 years ago
But, I was hoping to hear a conspiracy theory about how government and corporations have teamed together to centrally control the media. Then I was going to ask you for evidence. I guess you saw it coming and backed out.
DackBev 3 years ago
Hey Dack, your sitting in front of a computer with the wealth of all the worlds knowledge at your fingertips and you still need this explained to you?
If any of you brainiacs did any research before getting into debates you wouldn't ask me to school you. School yourself. Instead of calling anyone that doesn't agree with you a ...wait...it's coming...conspiracy theorist.
I say the media is used to sway public opinion (politics,advertising,religion), and that makes me a conspiracy nut? Nice.
NeatguyJones 3 years ago
No my friend it is a different kind of unfair treatment. McCain's/Clinton's/Obama's unfair treatment is that from time to time someone will dig up a scandal and it will be exaggerated and plastered in the news for days, which is hurtful but also leads to much more name recognition and interest in the politician. Ron Paul get this kind of treatment as well, but they keep the mere MENTIONING of him to a minimum so that you can still have people on the street not even knowing he is running.
angpetru 3 years ago
Ron Paul is a 2% candidate because he has a small legion of fans but gets little real attention from both the left and right media.
It's not all media's fault as the Paul campaign relied too much on the Paulistas and did little or nothing to help themselves.
I support Paul because he is the one guy out there with the right message. I have no illusions that he can win or that he could accomplish ANYTHING if he did.
I'm just sad that individual freedom is such an unpopular idea these days...
Ghostrider616 3 years ago
You hit the nail on the head. Freedom is not popular, thought it is more popular than some might have thought as Paul brought to light. But I don't think freedom has EVER been or ever will be very popular. It's always going to be a minority of people. When a free society is set up, it's because just a few people take charge and set one up. I don't see freedom as ever being popular among the masses.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
I agree with what you said and I'm a Ron Paul fan. But I believe his candiacy has educated so many people about libertarian views. So I don't see why you're sick hearing about him when he is educating people which you seem to care about. He has also helped people see the bias in the media. Hopefully, like you say, in 20 years people will use the internet and not mass media for news because the medium is the message. Because the internet is unfiltered you get the clearest view possible.
jimrobinson33 3 years ago
And D4Shawn is a troll, not a Ron Paul supporter, don't base your opinions of us based on idiots like him.
angpetru 3 years ago
D4Shawn is a friend of mine and not actually a Ron Paul supporter. He's making fun of the group you think he is a member of.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
He's isn't as popular with the general population because the general population lets what they hear through the news (usually only one news source also) to make their decision. If the news media covered Ron Paul as much as the other candidates that WOULD translate to more popularity in the general populace. What Ron Paul supporters like myself want is for one of 2 things. 1)People start researching candidates on their own or 2)That the media covers Paul more so those who don't get to see him.
angpetru 3 years ago
Ok, but that can be said for anyone. Why SHOULD they cover Ron Paul as much as someone else that is more popular in the polls and therefore the public has more interest is seeing? News stations are in the business to make money by giving viewers what they want to see. You want them to sacrifice profits in order to "fair." That's socialistic thinking.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
These polls you speak of are just as misleading as the media that uses them for your entertainment.
Paul was/is left out of many polls. Not even listed in the polls. Corporate owned news media intentionally left him out of debates, and when he does get to debate, they intentionally direct biased and hurtful remarks towards him. They intentionally don't report his victories.
How can the public make an intelligent decision about this man in light of this "fair and balanced" reporting?
NeatguyJones 3 years ago
Solid logical arguments are for fag-headed retards. Only gay dorks don't want Ron Paul to have his own TV show. You probably watch Oprah. She's fugly. I bet you play with dolls. I don't. I vote for Ron Paul.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
The general populace gets all their thoughts from the media. I like Ron Paul and I cannot say that much about politicians. Sure he has his flaws but I like the old man.
Trying to beat the system through its own game is almost impossible to do.
AJTalkingAnarchism 3 years ago 2
"Trying to beat the system through its own game is almost impossible to do."
Thumbs up to that.
cujothekitten 3 years ago
I'm not coming down on you, sir, but why are you so concerned with people's opinions on Ron Paul's popularity status. If they're wrong, let them be wrong. Since you are an individual who seems to be so much into logic, people will logically be displeased with how their candidate is treated if he/she is not treated as they see fit. The important thing is that these Ron Paul supporters are collectively helping an immense wave of an idea revive that which was part of an American ideal: Freedom.
capitalistinside 3 years ago
I get sick of hearing about Ron Paul, frankly. People are wasting time and energy supporting a man who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected instead of focusing on educating people about the real ideas behind freedom(not just as some cheesy, emotional buzzword, but the non-aggression principle, natural rights, etc.) so that something worthwhile in the future can be achieved.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
No offense, but Ron Paul is doing a lot more educating about freedom than you. He couldn't have had as much influence without taking part in the political process. Simply writing a book or essay about eliminating the Fed would have reached very few people. Anarchism will NEVER be achieved. The end justifies the means.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
It's rare that I really hear him talk about freedom in any sense other than using it to incite emotion. He blabbers on about the constitution a lot, but thats not the same as talking about freedom.
I can't even imagine what makes you think "Anarchism will NEVER be achieved," when several anarchic societies have existed throughout history.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
And what happened to them? The natural evolution of the development of a state. So sure one can EXIST but they're always going to be ephemeral so there's not point in doing it in the first place. Might as well save the trouble and set up a state with a strongly worded Constitution to protect a decent amount of liberty.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
But that didn't work. You're explicitly advocating a solution that has failed.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
No it hasnt failed. It has succeeded in giving me a life with a relatively large amount of liberty. Perfect liberty is not practically possible.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
Note also that I said a strongly worded Constitution. There can be a Constitution devised and worded to be more preventative of diminishing liberty. The U.S. constution is not perfect, and none will ever be.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
"Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion." -Ron Paul. Sounds like he's talking about freedom to me.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago 2
Now, you may say after reading that statement that he's contradicting himself by running for office. But Paul is a pragmatist and a realist. Zero government coercion is not possible. The best one can hope for, therefore, is its minimization.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
I'm confident that Ron Paul realizes that he has extremely slim chance at winning the election (that's why he's not running as an independent). However, what makes him so politically attractive to me and to so many others(on- or off-line) is the fact that he actually is continuing his campaign to spread his message more than anything else now that he has the attention of so many. For 31+ yrs. he has championed the constitutional position. He has an audience now, and they are becoming (continued)
capitalistinside 3 years ago
(continued) politically active towards the ideas that he has stood behind. Look into the how many intellectual individuals that he has affected and are now running for congress or the senate so that Libertarian ideas may have a much larger voice and impact. Believe that "something worthwhile" is happening, sir.
capitalistinside 3 years ago
Good point. But Xomniverse here wants all or nothing. Anarchism or nothing. But the fact is, if those who want freedom don't participate in the political process, only those that hate freedom will. Then we'll end up in a much more oppressive situation. His advocacy that freedom lovers don't participate in the political process is highly irrational. It's like advocating that only criminals get guns.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
You apparently still believe that the political process "works" and that your vote actually means something.
Here's some news; it doesn't, and none of those politicians give a fuck about you. They will not be the path to liberty.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
So, we should just give up instead? What do you propose to fix our situation? You know I hear alot of people saying these same things but no one EVER has a feasible ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION! This is the ultimate APATHY that has led our nation down this path in the first place, and more apathy is not the solution! You don't think a political action will make it better? THEN THINK UP ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT INSTEAD OF JUST COMPLAINING OR RIDICULING OTHERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING! End
angpetru 3 years ago
Agorism. Go look it up and get some perspective for once.
How short sighted do you have to be to think that politics is the only away to achieve goals?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I didn't say it's not the only way to acheive goals. I'm saying it's not something that should be discouraged for people who love freedom. Discourage it for statists all you want.
By the way, I'm familiar with "agorism" and it has never accomplished a thing. What counter economics are you participating in and what is it down to reduce the size of the state?
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
Anyone whose income isn't taxed by the state has reduced it by some small part but NOT paying taxes. And the more people who do it, the bigger impact it'll have.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
That hasn't been shown to be true in practice. The underground economy (untaxed economy) has been growing in the U.S. for a long time, and the state has become more powerful. The economy that is taxed has grown along with it.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
BUt you said you're an agorist. Is this just a state of mind or do you actually do anything in that regard?
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
I would never confess to illegal behavior in a public forum, so you shouldn't ask.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I'm sure you're like all online agorists. You don't participate in counter economics. It's just a state of mind of no consequence to the world. Not an agorist yesterday, agorist today, and nothing has changed in the world but the contents of your mind. Yet you condemn people for actually DOING something, by using politics.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
It's worked so far. I'm relatively free. That's all one can ever be, is relatively free. "The path to liberty" to you is apparently some nirvana where you're completely free. Not gonna happen.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
You're right we can never be totally free, but by not even trying we don't CONTINUE to have the same freedoms, we slowly lose them. It is in the constant strive to STAY free and acquire MORE freedoms that we REMAIN relatively free. We have ceased to strive for this and so we have slowly and methodically lost relative freedoms. The answer to this is not to continue to not do anything, hence continuing the problem, but to put renewed effort into the striving!
angpetru 3 years ago
And not to worry about a technical breach of the "non-aggression principle," which is dubious principle in the first place. XOmniverse is terrified of sullying his hands and becoming impure and condemns other libertarians for impurity as well, by engaging in politics. In the meanwhile, he accomplishes nothing but obtaining the vague contentment that one feels when he thinks he is purer than thou.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
I agree with you completely and have been aware of this fact myself. But I have also noted, without too much proof... that internet users in general search out things on their own. This is quite obvious because usually or again generally non-internet users prefer to have "tv" search out things and decide what they want to watch. Thus meaning that it is possible that they are more susceptible to influence by media.
theoriginalanomaly 3 years ago 3
So, with this in mind... it could be argued that internet users being more individualistic come to a conclusion... The same proportion of non-internet users may come to the same conclusion given that he is shoved in their faces as much as other candidates.
theoriginalanomaly 3 years ago
FYI: LeeGeeGee is an admitted professional agitator disrupting discussions by calling people pedophiles, etc. Causing defensive backlash that degrades political discussions to worthless.
minivanjack 3 years ago
FYI: minivanjack, is a liar. I've never claimed such a thing. You're and the other conspiracy theorists are the ones claiming I'm a professional agitator. You're really a kooky individual if you think someone would pay someone to come here and criticize your video, old man.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
minivanjack, Who do you claim sent me here as a "professional agitator?"
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
The point was already made on the graphs of differences between internet popularity and actual street popularity.The msm coverage percent for 3 cand. was much higher.Tho Ron Pauls msm coverage was virtually single didget coverage his popularity percent raised at the same rate as the others without msm.So the point is if RP had the same msm coverage as the others there would be no question who's street popularity would be highest along with the internet as well.So we should use the msm polls?
contain1359 3 years ago 2
INT EG RITY = Voteing for who you believe in even if the odds are against them!!! Ron Paul made me care.
failderhorn 3 years ago 4
Your point is flawed,most of the nation didn't.Know who Barak Obama was Until The media showed Obama girl made that made him popular, oh wait on the internet and the MSM.
Most supporters of Ron Paul are waiting until the convention to vote.
Gulpoopelcnu 3 years ago
All through capaign contributions and corruption.
Gulpoopelcnu 3 years ago
He's unpopular with the general population,because the MSM doesn't make money off of him.Think about this where do you think Hitlary,Obuma,or McCain would be without their news coverage?It's all set up to be a popularity contest,and who is going to make.The biggest ratings and money Ron Paul was shut out,cause he doesn't support the corporate agenda.Same with Mike Gravel,as soon as he started to duke it out with Hitlery his media coverage destroyed.The 3 tier candidates are paid to put on a show
Gulpoopelcnu 3 years ago 4
Another point I made, which was related to your point about "having it both ways" was that if the internet was a true gauge of him being more popular than all the other candidates, then there would be no need for him being in the MSM in order to boost his popularity. In other words, there would be no need to complain about the MSM.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago
And get this, he claims because I dispute his video that I'm not really a Paul supporter but someone on a covert operation sent from some elite organization (Centcom is one he mentioned) to "agitate" against Ron Paul.
The guy also appears to be a 9/11 truther.
He's crazy, and very stupid.
LeeGeeGee 3 years ago