The end has 2 pictures the first one is of people holding no signs of Ron Paul and the second one is a picture of a single man. Which makes it look like he has no support, but as you can see in the video it is not true. They picture him as a hopeless candidate with no very little support and hype.
I had to watch it twice before I got it! But, the pics they show at the end, those were on ABC the day of the debate? Typical schmooze!
I used to have a photography teacher who did a lot of political photojournalism, and he gave us a little presentation on how much sway the pictures that newspapers choose to publish have. For example, in the 1993 canadian elections, most newspapers would constantly be showing pictures of Kim Cambpell looking ridiculous and Jean Chretien looking decisive and confident. The thing is, photographers are constantly snapping politicians and have a huge selection of shots to choose from, each portraying the candidates in all kinds of ways, so the photo selection in newspapers is very deliberate. It's a very subtle way of influencing public opinion, really. You judge someone through a photo much more subconsciously than you do when reading something about them.
The way I saw it was that they used that particular photo of the lone man with a Ron Paul sign because the sign said "Hope For America" and there was a huge rainbow over the guy's head. I'd have taken the picture, too. But, as usual, R_M hit the nail on the head. Ron Paul's running even with Somebody Else in most polls.
1% of what? He constantly had the the most or 2nd most support/votes for winner in every debate hes been in.
Unless I misunderstood you, that is total bullshit. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html (not not a single percentage in any of those polls above 3%, and the vast majority places him at 1%) including: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/American-Research-Group-National-Polls-July-2007.html http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/Zogby-National-Polls-July-2007.html http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/Newsweek-National-Polls-July-2007.html http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/Fox-News-National-Polls-July-2007.html http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/Gallup-National-Polls-July-2007.html and many more.
I believe you did misunderstand him a bit. I believe he was saying that Ron Paul comes in 2nd in all the debate results. Based on the debates I have seen, this has been the case every time I believe (I say he won the first one on FOX, until Hannity had his way.)
Oh, alright, well admittedly I'm not following this incredulously premature election frenzy. But even that is not a reflection of popularity - right?
Absolutely. As you've pointed out, Ron Paul has no more 3% support in most major polls, with <1% being most realistic. Ron Paul supporters really should focus their efforts on Steve Kubby and the Libertarian party.
Steve Kubby would most likely have my vote if I were an American. Ron Paul is good too, but Kubby takes the cake. http://forum.grasscity.com/general/143005-steve-kubby-cannabis-user-president-08-a.html
all of you that do not agree with Dr Paul should really listen to him and look him up.. He's the only hope for america and what the news is doing to him is bullshit. goes to show who controls this shithole country and whos behind those curtains, open your eyes and vote ron paul RON PAUL 08
... not until people start voting for the best candidates anyway. zing But seriously, this idea that we are comprehensively trapped into this two party system is truly a delusion. The idea that we must select a lesser of two evils must come to end. If everyone who felt that way when going to the polls just voted for whoever they truly wanted, we could break this cycle. Human beings are masters at one thing... emulation. You must set the example and spread the word.