Supporter Cries Foul Over Ron Paul's Exclusion from Yahoo! Games Candidate Recap

DCOW (above) confesses:

"I judge a politician by the kind of supporters he has, and Ron Paul’s supporters definately fail. "

There it is folks: ignorance on stilts and bragging about it. Certainly NOT a Ron Paul supporter. They judge candidates by the quality of the candidates ideas and the integrity of his voting record. That's why they are Ron Paul supporters.

All these people on here supporting the democrats. How ignorant.

Do you have ANY idea what the democrats want to do with your games? Do you think it is the Republicans that have been attacking the gaming industry?

It's like how the blacks support overwhelmingly democrats. WTF!? The democrats were the pro-slavery party! The democrats were the ones fighting AGAINST civil rights in the 60s. Check your history books, folks.

There is simply no excuse for being so ignorant. You attribute things to the democratic party that THEY do not support themselves. Like getting us out of Iraq and not starting a war with Iran. DO YOU SERIOUSLY believe any of the democrats, besides Gravel are going to get us out of Iraq? They have never even said they would. YOU just keep thinking they will and they are simply letting you believe it. Not one of them besides Gravel has said they would.

Pure ignorance.

@ EZK: Because in many cases, it was simply for no reason. Faux News' debate in New Hampsire had Fred Thompson, who was nationally doing worse than Paul.

Plus, Huckabee has not been doing well since Iowa. So I don't think it'd be fair call him a top candidate, either.

They also didn't include Gravel for the Democrats, who probably has the same stance on video games as Paul, and frankly would be a much better president.

Other then Obama, Ron Paul is the only other candidate i like. Just pray to God that both Mitt Romney and Clinton don't get nominations for their party. Otherwise vote for a Third party candidate or kiss your First Amendment rights goodbye and say hello to the nanny-state.

From an objective standpoint, Ron Paul isn't considered a viable candidate for president by most people.

Actually I saw my first Ron Paul supporter yesterday. Actually, it was a Ron Paul sign stuck in the front yard of someone in my neiborhood. Next to the for sale sign for the house. I'm not sure they are actually living in that house right now. But that means that at least one person in my state supports him!

While soliciting opinions on the different candidates from others in my office, everyone had the same thing to say about Ron Paul; "Who?"

There is a difference between being vocal and being a majority.

@Night
The candidates only drop out when they want to.

If they want to they can continue running as an independent. Quite Frankly we can't force the media to cover a candidate.

Now if there was enough outrage and enough people were angry that they were being force fed a specific candidate, then we wouldn't need to force the media to cover all of them.

To bad we can't get enough people outraged enough.

The 2 party is the result of incredible apathy and a large number of people who don't pay attention to politics except during the lead up to the presidential election. Even when they are paying attention, its only so they can make some extra noise, even then they still do the same thing, he is a republican/democrat hes th only one for me.

The entire sidebar of that site, Nolan Chart, is for the most visited stories. It should be pointed out that nearly every single one of them has Paul in the title, and the rest just have to do with him. His internet popularity is crazy for what he is.

Paul is interesting to a discussion of Gaming positions because he is so unabashadley different from the other candidates. He clearly would not mess with gamers or games, as his position on things like the First Ammendment are pretty much as commited as you get. It is of interest to gamers that there is a candidate who is exactly what we are looking for (in terms of positions on video games, at least).

First off Gravel is better than Paul (just wanted to clear up that issue). Secondly it is a shame that yahoo did not include all the canidates, but what do you expect from an arm of a conglamerate. (The arms sole porpous it to make money for the parent comapny.)

People don't vote Ron Paul even if they like him or his ideas. Because our electoral system is flawed, we only get one choice and voting for Paul is like throwing your vote. If we had a system that used something like instant runoff voting, we would not have this "throwing your vote" problem.

@kurisu7885

Um...what are we saying that is so whiny? I for one am a Ron Paul supporter (or rather, highly dislike Romney, Hillary and Edwards) and would like to hear your reasons for why/how we are being so annoying that you feel the need to tell us to grow up.

"The MSM is scarred that they will have to pay more attention to him now that the fairweather candidates have fallen off. Ron Paul has raised more money from more supporters than any other candidate in history.

But hey what do facts matter in a fantasy world"

And you'd expect him to be in first place because of this, but he isn't. In fact, he's last amongs the republicans (not 100% sure but I HAVE to be close).

I can't believe American citizens have become so ignorant not to notice what is happening during these debates.

There is no doubt that if "Ron Paul" is NOT a threat to monied interests in this country (in receiving their tax sponsored corporate welfare.....why would they decide to exclude him?

Obviously he is a threat to their free money & ability to then spend it with lobbyists to pass even more legistlation that benefits them directly.

If Ron Paul has such a low amount of support, why did the mainstream media have no problem pushing someone with no support (Guiliani was supposedly a wrapup for the Republican nomination !)

Democrats are exactly the same as most republicans these days. Bought & paid for.

@DCOW

You should judge a candidate on what he believes not what his supporters act like (since the more extreme supporters are usually more vocal).

Here's my view on Ron Paul.

I would not want him as president but I think he'd be perfect as a supreme court judge.

Ron Paul certainly looks attractive as a candidate that will protect the first amendment, but in the past, Paul has stated some things that are horribly racist in his newsletter. Additionally, it has been shown that he has accepted funds from stormfront.org, a white supremacy organization. Despite his appearance of championing first amendment rights, he is likely to ruin civil rights in our nation.

DCOW... (hmmm)... anyway, every candidate has odd acting supporters. Some people are more passionate then others. You should be worried more about the ambivalent then those that are ardent. You'll always have a few that go too far. Look at the Hillary supporter who wanted to get health care so held up her office. Maybe growing up and looking at the issues and the true condition of our country then comparing those to the candidates stances might prove a better way to pick a candidate then by what you think of an ardent or even several ardent supporters.

From - http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

He has "no idea" who wrote, in his newsletter "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

He has "no idea"? If he can't find out who said what in such a small office that was his newsletter then either he is incompetent or he is lying. Everyone else knows who wrote it. Ron Paul is responsible for everything that came from his newsletter with his name on it. He now is trying to deny responsibility for it.

Reason Magazine shares the general Libertarian ideals as Ron Paul and they can't stand him. This isn't a hit piece by the "MSM" because nobody could call Reason Magazine main stream media. I'm sure there will be some vast conspiracy that will be raised to explain why this is an issue but he doesn't deny that such things were said in his newsletter just that he isn't responsible for it.

Ron Paul puts riders in bills that send pork barrel projects to his state and then votes against it to say that he votes against bills that spend (they pass over his no vote) despite the fact that his pen wrote the spending. So yes, lets judge him by his hypocritical voting.

@chada

hah. your such a joke.

same goes for john reading.


I actually am your average GP poster, and I have been for quite a while. I've been here since before this site was in wordpress form.

@nathaniel Edwards

amen man. a-f--king-men.

Anyone who claims to know the outcome or a good prediction of the outcome of any election has lost any credibility to me. Sorry, you have a guess but you DO NOT KNOW. No matter what reasons you state, what polls you cite you do not have a clue. Its hard to give people respect that have this mindset. Its just stupid, there is no other way around it.

Honestly, it is people in this mindset, along with people that claim not voting for republican/democrat is a wasted vote, that are a HUGE part of the problem in terms of America's unreliable election process. It has gotten out of hand. Who is left that actually votes for who they think will be the best person for the job rather than the person who is better than the worst choice. Why pick whats better than wrong over what you believe is right? American voters have lost all of their common sense, all of their values and all of their credibility because of this foolish and shameful mindset. It is frightening how much America would rather vote to make sure someone else doesn't win rather than just voting for who they believe in.

Disgusting. He is left out but really why shouldn't GP cover this?

I'd much rather read articles on RP rather than JT. Honestly, I just don't read the JT articles anymore. JT sues A for because of X. A = Person/Company X = Bullshit reason. Its really boring and predictable. Its like playing Pac Man after you've memorized all the patterns.