Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[HalfLotus]

Good idea. They don't want the 'wrong' candidate getting the nomination.

Funny you put it that way, so did the Donald.

Trump ‘probably will run’ if Republicans pick ‘wrong’ candidate

So yes, the establishment already has their election Trump card - just in case their voted-rigging, media-smearing, convention brokering scams manage to fail at misinforming and misrepresenting the American people yet again.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Given Paul's relentless pandering to the conspiracy theorist community over the years, it comes as no surprise to see conspiracy theories already springing up here.

My next crisp £10 note is wagered on the following- when he loses, Paul's supporters will immediately start screeching about conspiracies rather than accept the fact that extremists tend to struggle in big elections.

[Kuciwalker]

Nah, he's been losing for ages, they all know it's because the sheep won't accept his ideas.

[Dinner]

Given Paul's relentless pandering to the conspiracy theorist community over the years, it comes as no surprise to see conspiracy theories already springing up here.

My next crisp £10 note is wagered on the following- when he loses, Paul's supporters will immediately start screeching about conspiracies rather than accept the fact that extremists tend to struggle in big elections.

Which is why they're going to urge him to run as an independent. With luck he'll attract enough would be Romney voters to not only kill Romney's campaign but tip a few down ballot races as well.

[Zevico]

Isn't HL a truther anyway? Who's surprised that a truther supports RP?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think any of us really are surprised.

[OzzyKP]

Given Paul's relentless pandering to the conspiracy theorist community over the years, it comes as no surprise to see conspiracy theories already springing up here.

My next crisp £10 note is wagered on the following- when he loses, Paul's supporters will immediately start screeching about conspiracies rather than accept the fact that extremists tend to struggle in big elections.

It isn't conspiratorial to complain about how the media has treated Paul. And I don't mean the exposure of the newsletters, that is actually refreshingly normal treatment of a political candidate. But the insistence that "he can't win" at every opportunity, even now when he is polling strong. Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, Palin and all the other non-Romney GOPers can't honestly win either but were all treated as serious candidates when their time in the limelight came. Yet Ron Paul is continually ignored, disregarded, and excluded. If Ron Paul loses because of his extremism, then so be it. But for the media to decide (and repeat over and over again) that he has lost before the race has even begun is damned crooked. Their job isn't to play king maker.

So yea, it is appropriate to complain about that. Heck, even Jon Stewart did, and he's certainly no conspiratorial Paultard.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait... Bachmann was treated as a serious candidate?! Every time she was portrayed by the media it was in the role of "look at this kook".

[OzzyKP]

Kooky, yes. But it was always kooky with a serious shot of winning. I'd prefer that over kooky and no chance of winning so let's talk about Romney's haircut instead.

[Dr Strangelove]

The circus just keeps on rolling. It's my belief that this spectacle of "flavor of the month republican favorite" is all a ploy to leech massive amounts of public attention to offset Obama's natural advantage as an incumbent. Also they need to draw attention away from their natural tendency towards insanity, though this isn't so huge an obstacle. Reagan was widely acknowledged as a mental lightweight, and he managed to hold two terms. Ditto with Bush Jr. Christ the man was utterly defeated by 3 syllable words.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It isn't conspiratorial to complain about how the media has treated Paul. And I don't mean the exposure of the newsletters, that is actually refreshingly normal treatment of a political candidate. But the insistence that "he can't win" at every opportunity, even now when he is polling strong.

In the media I'm reading, the Republican candidates in general are being described as a "freakshow"- and that's even from the right-wing UK media. Paul's treatment really looks no different.

[C0ckney]

as the race is being run in america, it's his treatment by the american media that's important. how the uk or other foreign media treats him is irrelevant.

[Kidlicious]

No one believes the media anyway, and with good reason. R Paul has a good chance to win.

[Zevico]

The circus just keeps on rolling. It's my belief that this spectacle of "flavor of the month republican favorite" is all a ploy to leech massive amounts of public attention to offset Obama's natural advantage as an incumbent.

I'm sorry to take you to task on this, but who is this a ploy by? None of the candidates stand to gain from flavour-of-the-month politics unless they are the last "flavour." And for that matter, the "flavour of the month" comes simply from better polling by a given candidate. The notion that prospective Republican voters are trying to "leech" attention and thereby change their affections is nonsense. It presumes that the entire constituency, or some large part of it, is literally participating in a conspiracy designed to "offset Obama's natural advantage as an incumbent." Nonsense.

Also they need to draw attention away from their natural tendency towards insanity, though this isn't so huge an obstacle.

If by insanity, you mean politics with which you disagree. If you lack the perspective necessary to understand that differing viewpoints are not "insane", then you can hardly protest if I deem you to be little more than a fanatic.

Reagan was widely acknowledged as a mental lightweigh

By whom? Reagan is rightly credited with putting forward a defence policy designed to bring down the Soviet Union. And he succeeded. For that reason alone he is an American hero to whom the world owes its thanks.

Ditto with Bush Jr. Christ the man was utterly defeated by 3 syllable words.

The strains of office are such that politicians often make such errors. Obama has made them as well; they're just not publicised as much. See e.g. "57 states" or "corpse-man." We look to politicians for thoughtful, clear analysis and policy, not perfect English.

You belittle and heap scorn on your countrymen for holding opinions that differ from yours. That is unbecoming.

[kentonio]

If by insanity, you mean politics with which you disagree. If you lack the perspective necessary to understand that differing viewpoints are not "insane", then you can hardly protest if I deem you to be little more than a fanatic.

No, he means insanity. As in stark raving, bouncing off the walls ****witted nutjobs. If you cannot see that the positions held by the majority of the primary field are insane, then you can hardly protest if we deem you to be little more than a fanatic. If you think Bachmann and Santorum and Perry are reasonable politicians, then you need to step away from sharp objects immediately and seek help.

By whom? Reagan is rightly credited with putting forward a defence policy designed to bring down the Soviet Union. And he succeeded. For that reason alone he is an American hero to whom the world owes its thanks.

The strains of office are such that politicians often make such errors. Obama has made them as well; they're just not publicised as much. See e.g. "57 states" or "corpse-man." We look to politicians for thoughtful, clear analysis and policy, not perfect English.

Ah you think that Reagan and Bush were intelligent men. Ok, you're not helping yourself on that insane issue.

You belittle and heap scorn on your countrymen for holding opinions that differ from yours. That is unbecoming.

I assume you think the Germans should have held off from criticizing that nice Mr Hitler too yes? Wouldn't want them to be thought of as 'unbecoming' after all.