[VIDEO] Daily Show clip going viral... Jon Stewart comes out swinging hard for...

He does better against Obama than almost any other candidate according to the polls. He does better among independents, and he would humiliate Obama with his base by outflanking to the Left on war and social and civil liberties issues.

He's a totally viable candidate by any reasonable measure. The media ignores because they don't like him, and if that makes him unelectable, it's because the voters are dupes of the media and if that's the case, the electoral process and structure of government in this country is completely broken and needs to be replaced.

 

Bill O tonight pretty much summed up how FNC views a conservative as "viable" talking about how Perry was "attacked" right after he announced his candidacy.

 

Nah, the left only do it to Dennis Kucinich...

 

Please, tell us something we do not know,Obama proved how screwed up the media is didn't he?
Point being it's what we are dealing with, I for one am not going to take the chance of losing, the Dems would party if we chose him, they know he would lose. He does not stand a snow balls chance in Hell,,and that is a Fact....

 

Stewart is leftist slime,,he is a commedian remember?, his job is to exaggerate,,remember? Paul has no chance of being elected and he knows that, the man is unelectable.
This country does not go for ''OLD'',,,isn't that what HE SAID ABOUT McCain?
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-mccain-has-gone-from-man-of-wisdom-all-the-way-to-full-grand-turino-video-2011-1

So,,,,,old and cranky works for Stewart when he wants it to,,,,BOTH WAYS!!,,and of course you follow him BOTH WAYS like fools....


THE MAN IS A COMEDIAN,,GET OVER IT!!!!!!

THERE IS NO INTEREST IN A PERSON THAT CANT WIN!!!....Logic WINS!!!

 

Logic obviously does not win. If it did, Ron Paul would be the only candidate as he is the only logical one that doesnt constantly contradict himself.

 

Yes, because a nuclear Iran is soooo logical.

 

Iran has not killed anyone with Nukes.....I will give you a couple of guesses as to who has though.

 

Nidal Malik Hasan when he was 12 didn't kill anyone later... whats your point?





With regards to the USA bombing Japan. They were hero's. Just google. "rape of nanking"...



Sample of Japanese cruelty:

 

That's right. Everyone should be considered innocent until speculated guilty.

More blind "my team is always right" nationalism. I guess Japan deserved the death penalty for the actions of a few? Of course, the "Allies" all had plenty of atrocities on their records. So presumably they ALL should have been nuked.


Wounded Knee (USA)


Great Irish Potato Famine (UK)


Holodomor (USSR)


Changsha Fire (Chinese Kuomintang)

 

Problem is he has very radical idea's, soo radical people would be afraid to vote for him.

Yes he has a strong base but that isnt enough, you need to atract tens of millions of undecided and independant voters and he would have a very hard to atracting those.

 

So far he's been good at attracting independents according to the polls. His biggest challenge is with the traditional Republican base--though he is now at 16% in Iowa.

 

It's always a bit amusing to see people second guessing history seventy years after the fact. As brutal as nuking two cities was, a prolonged
door to door campaign to make Japan capitulate would have been infinitely worse...for all involved.

 

No, its him not wanting troops on nearly every continent including one we have no point in being in anymore (Europe). Also he is right. South Korea could kick north Korea`s ass back to the stone age without any help whatsoever from america. NK is still using tanks from 1964, their army is so bloated they cant even arm and train all of their soldiers (and the ones that are armed are given old ak-47`s and ww2 era rifles lol). Meanwhile SK has a fully working and equipped modern military.
If you consider the Geography of the Korean peninsula, NK`s numbers (the only thing they would have on the SK`s) would be more of a hindrance than a help in a real war.
Unless North Korea somehow was able to detonate several nukes in key spots in SK (which would never happen because that would bring china`s wrath on their ass, and China is the one country they really fear) it would be physically impossible to win given the current circumstances.

 

Heh, the left only likes to talk about Ron Paul because they too realize he isn't a serious candidate.

But if you want to start plugging his domestic agenda starting with entitlement reform, I'll stand with you.

 

The right hates Ron Paul because they realize he actually believes in the stuff the right wing pretends to believe in rather than the christian nationalism the right actually wants.

 

Japan would almost certainly have capitulated, so long as the US was willing to guarantee that the emperor would remain on his throne. The problem was that the US insisted on unconditional surrender--despite letting them keep the emperor in the end, anyway.

And even if Japan hadn't been willing to capitulate, that doesn't justify slaughtering countless innocent people, either through nukes or land invasions. Japan was already devastated. The US military could always have come home. Only to heartless collectivists is a broken government's white flag worth more than innocent lives.

 

If we hadn`t ended the war fast then Russia would have gotten involved. The whole of northern Japan would have been reduced to a eastern European type hell hole, America would have had to share the Island with Russia, which would have changed the course of the cold war and Japan would be in a lot worse shape today

 

"We" could have ended the war faster by offering a negotiated peace, rather than dragging it out for unconditional surrender.

 

Even more amusing. The revisionist wishful thinking of after the fact "experts".

 

Paul ought to be put in a mental institute. Anyone who claims it's OK for Iran to have a nuclear bomb is insane.

 

Agreed! That's Ron Paul for you. Who are we, he says, to try and stop Iran from getting their own bomb?

He's a dangerous isolationist and you can easily imagine him saying the same thing about Nazi Germany prior to WWII (Who are we to tell Hitler he cannot have the Sudetenland?).

 

And yet you don't refute. I guess you prefer whatever expert wrote the textbook you subscribe to.

 

Good thing he never said that. As a libertarian, he probably believes its not okay for anyone to have a nuclear bomb, including the warlords of the Potomac.

 

Tell me what I'm supposed to refute...your unproven specious claims?

How am I supposed to refute the historical inaccuracies and fantasies you play in your own head? Where is there a single shred of proof of what you claim?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_no_surrender_01.shtml