I went to an authentic Mexican restaurant this evening; nearly 80% of the people working and eating there were Mexican immigrants, and all of the food listed on the menu was Mexican food. Clearly, Chinese cuisine is falling out of favor with U.S. restaurant goers.

Is Chinese food really falling out of favor, or should I have included others beyond Mexican restaurant patrons in my survey sample?

Seems to me it is media's fault people think Ron Paul can't beat Obama, well, media and GOP insider party hacks who pretend Ron Paul isn't electable because he isn't THEIR prefered candidate. (As a reality check, you should check polls on what the general public thinks of party insiders.) Generally Ron Paul polls better against Obama than any GOP except Romney, and on occassion Ron Paul has beaten Romney on that score as well. The recent Harris poll, for example, showed Ron Paul beating Obama. http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com/2011/09/28/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-new-harris-poll/

The fact is, Ron Paul dominates with independents.

Recently, Ron Paul was put at the top of the Iowa Power Rankings, as well.

So, why does media run stories like this, instead?

In reality, nobody knows, Jason. It's all part of the fun of election cycle speculation and opinion sharing, and maybe a bit of a conversation starter. We are hearing during debates that the question for Republicans is which candidate can beat Obama, which seems to be the uniform goal among all the contenders, policies aside. How would you answer the question?

Carol,

That's the case with all the sites. We've provided coverage of all the candidates' stops, not just the perceived "frontrunners." I can personally say I am not trying write stories to influence people to chose or discredit certain candidates, but rather to write stories that explain their policies, who they are as individuals and how locals perceive them. I think polls like this, while largely unscientific, help show part of the latter point.

And just for clarity, Ron Paul gets some of the largest — if not largest — support in all the polls I've done. Whether that shows Paul has strong local support or shows that he just has a loyal team of people taking all our polls is up for you to decide. Either way, though, I think that shows he's not being marginalized on Patch.

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=ron+paul+corporatism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

He also wants to control woman's bodies, remove the regulations that keep corporations from polluting, doesn't support equal rights, workers right to a safe workplace should go, wants Social Security to go away, would tax the higher income folks a whole lot less, and believes that science class in schools should teach the bible, and on and on...

Here's a surprise Sal - he would turn us into a third world country, where people like you and me would be serfs to the rich - two classes, and the guy you want as Pres could do it.

@ Jan

Ron Paul is in the business of getting the federal government telling you what you can and can't do.

By supporting the federal abortion laws you are opening the issue of nationwide abortion to be legal or illegal. You agree with the law now because you agree with it, but years down the road the politicians could easily make abortion illegal in all 50 states.

This is too much power to be in the hands of the feds. Ron Paul's stance in no way "controls woman's bodies". Quite the opposite.

For peace and personal liberty vote Ron Paul.

No you don't get it right.

Everyone benefits, not just me or you. If I didn't have to pay federal income tax maybe I can afford that more expensive medication to treat my chronic condition. This would be more money in the private sector, which actually helps the economy.

I find it morally wrong for the government to forcibly take a portion of my earned wages and spend it on launching missiles at people in the middle east.

We seriously need to reduce our national debt as soon as possible. This means we have to cut the sections of the government which hurt our economy. The sooner we reign in the insane amount of deficit spending and cut into our abhorrent national debt, the sooner our economy will recover.

Jan, you have all the right in the world to be charitable and solidaire and work for your community, and it is desirable that you do so, but once you force others to join in even if they don't agree with it, or maybe they have doubts about the effectiveness or honesty of the specific programs they're being asked to fund, all that charity you're doing is canceled out by your tyranny. And if you just sit on your butt and demand that some armed goons make other people do charity with THEIR money which they earned for themselves with no help from you or anybody else, in the government or otherwise, while you get to keep what you earn, then that's just evil.

Quoting Murray Rothbard: "It's very easy to be charitable with other people's money."

Please see: H.R.2597 and H.R.392 -

Spending has never been the problem until bush put it all on a credit card, instead of in the budget.

SS is not bankrupt...

See, how can you defend him with falsehoods? If you're going to support him, at least acknowlege his bad parts as well as his good parts.

The answer is full employment, and the right is doing everything they can to stop it from happening.

Excellent analogy!

I'll tell you what I told ABC: If Ron Paul had every journalist in the country gobbling his balls until they go full circle and aren't wrinkly anymore, he wouldn't need to fly around so much to campaign personally.

Why do you think heroin should be illegal again? Do you own other people's bodies? Are you their dad? Do you think the illusion you have of living in a world without drug addicts is worth sending them to skid row and to prison to ruin their lives even more? Get back to me on that.

I guess you are talking about the British industrial revolution, because in America it didn't have nearly as much social impact as in England, which should already tell you all you need know, and while it's true that European people suffered on those factories, they were suffering A LOT MORE on the countryside. In America, the free-market was responsible for ending a MAJOR depression in no more than a year, reason why you don't hear much about the crash of '21, and reason why you think FDR ended the one in '29, when all he did was delay it and it just ended because it was going to end sometime.

Paul voted AGAINST the bailout.

Let me rephrase that:

Paul voted AGAINST the bailout.

Not only did he vote AGAINST it, he also fiercely condemns it to this day. He doesn't want to give rich people money, he wants to END the institution that does so (The Fed)

Paul is the exact OPPOSITE of anyone who believes in trickle-down economics, including Obama.

You can't pick and choose. If you're going to allow people to vote, which is tantamount to telling other people what to do, you better believe that it's no worse to object to the introduction of drugs in my community. Either way, you are ordering someone else around. I know that Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of wannabe rebel hippies, but as long as you participate in this Democratic process, you are affecting other people- including their bodies. So let's just get that fallacy out of the way.

I think it's awfully telling that you ignored the Industrial Revolution, and I guess that makes a lot of sense because your candidate ignores it also. You cannot pick and choose your success stories. The fact of the matter is, the way wealth works in our country is that worker bees generate more money than they are paid for their bosses. It's a giant pyramid scheme. This is undeniable-look at any chart of the class system. On the top is the 1%- that tiny little speck at the top. As you move down the pyramid, it gets fatter and fatter. Pyramid scheme. Your candidate wants to open the floodgates for the people at the top to operate unimpeded- to gather as many worker bees for whatever price they feel they are willing to pay for their services- without fear of regulation. Your candidate wants to abolish the minimum wage!

No, all you have here is some candidate appealing to the slackers by giving them legalized drugs and appealing to the rich by making white-collar shenanigans legal.

I guess you don't realize the Industrial Revolution was in the 18th and 19th century. That paragraph you wrote is about the 20th century. Fail.

Yes, the very act of voting is electing someone who will tell other people what to do. There's no getting around that, and you are at the height of hypocrisy to claim otherwise. I can tell you are shielding yourself from logic, you don't want to see it for what it is. That's voting. Voting is electing someone to rule over other people. That includes drug policy, tax policy, foreign-policy, and many other things. And as I recall, your candidate used to be in favor of "don't ask, don't tell." For someone who claims to be so righteous about not ordering people around, that's fairly telling.

"And you're talking about "your community" like you own it. It's the junkie's community too, you know? Maybe HE resents YOU introducing all that healthy lifestyle in HIS community."

Yeah, this is right about the time when everyone realizes Ron Paul and his hippie fan club are out of their minds. Have a nice time with your joke candidate. I hope he wins the primary so we get Obama for four more years. Best of luck.

I guess you don't realize that I clearly pointed out that this terrible "industrial revolution" you speak of happened mostly only in Britain and Europe, the US had industrialization but no great social impact as it happened elsewhere. So I guess it's not the free market's fault, is it? And I also very clearly pointed out that, as bad as the conditions were for factory workers in Britain, they were mostly moving to the city from the countryside, and their lives were much WORSE on the countryside.

So I guess the logical conclusion to this vote thing is that you should vote for the guy who will control your life the most? Go to North Korea, then. They'll tell you even what positions you are allowed to use during sex, and what haircuts are acceptable for anyone who doesn't want to spend a summer at death camp. And you get to vote sometimes, for the same candidate, always.

You know, it's kind of heartbreaking that people talk all kinds of BS about Ron Paul without knowing anything about him. They have a word for this. It's called "being boneheaded". Which is two words, but whatever.

Anyway: http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/ron-paul-says-he-s-more-worried-about-straights-in-the-military?directory=100011

Won't click the link? Title says "RON PAUL SAYS HE'S MORE WORRIED ABOUT STRAIGHTS IN THE MILITARY". That's a gay magazine, by the way.

I daresay I know more about him than you do. I just am able to think critically, while you are a Stepford voter.

Ron Paul flip-flops on homosexuality:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-05-28/ron-paul-why-i-changed-my-mind-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/

While his position is better now, I don't believe he suddenly changed his opinions about gay people for anything other than politics. I'm surprised you did not notice the pandering, and you refuse to censure him for his prejudice.

Next item. Oh look, I guess you agree with telling other people what to do by exercising your right to vote. You gave up on your drug argument fairly quickly. As you now realize, your logic holds no water and is easily taken apart. Critical thinking requires practice. It's more than just reciting talking points.

Unfortunately, you revert to the conservative fallback of, "if you don't like it, go to North Korea" followed by a flimsy attempt at sexual shock value. Judging by my liberal, progressive stance on love and relationships, this falls flat. Part of democracy is being able to disagree. Telling everyone to go to North Korea, it's just not very intelligent and ignores what we're trying to do here in America. Your attitude is more North Korean than mine, in fact.

The Industrial Revolution had a ton of free market problems! Ever read "The Grapes of Wrath?" What do you think factory conditions are like for workers in the 19th century?

Keep trying.

WHAT??? MY logic holds no water??? Are you so enamored with yourself that you really believe that??? You truly, honestly believe that the MORONIC comparison you made with voting took it apart??? I mean, seriously, not to offend you, dude, but that was just stupid. I can think of a thousand better arguments you could have used in favor of drug prohibition.

You DO realize Grapes of Wrath is a work of fiction written by a rich socialist from a rich socialist perspective, don't you? Like, it's made up, it's fantasy, the guy didn't live through the dust bowl, he just guessed how it was. And YOU DO realize that it's set in the 30's right? Long AFTER the free market was wiped out from the country by the federal reserve.

As for the other stuff, it seems you're more concerned with my style of writting and trying to prove that the way I write gives up my complete desperation at your towering, infallible arguments. I'm sure you imagine me backing off from the computer going "BY GOD! How can I counter THAT? I've never seen such a sharp elocubration!", but I'm not. If you had truly given me something that miraculously made me question my belief in the free market, I would have told you something to the tune of "Well, I don't know how to answer that" or at the very least "I'm going to look it up", because I value more the learning than saving face.

And look, dude, you can believe what you want. If you don't want to take my word that it's a completely failed system, okay, I'm not your dad either, but here's the thing: You can't FORCE other people into it. That's simply EVIL. Making people buy your government model with the money they earned for themselves with no help from YOU or anyone else for that matter through taxes.

You want "free" healthcare? Then pay for it yourself. Don't try to do charity with other people's money, because that's not charity, that's theft.

You don't want to do drugs? Don't do drugs. Let other people OWN their lives just like you OWN yours.

And your vote thing? I don't vote for people to tell me what to do. I vote for politicians that will PREVENT other politicians from telling me what to do with my life. I want a society WITHOUT government, but since that's not a realistic expectation, if the government is really inevitable, then its role should be only to protect my property, life and liberty. That's not telling me what to do, that's WORKING for MY interests and OTHER PEOPLE'S interests.

I don't think you want to get into a literature debate. Your candidate is a Jesus believer, a story based on a book that is cobbled together over a few centuries. If you are going to knock the "grapes of wrath", I don't think Ron Paul's dogma is going to survive any more than a few minutes of conversation. But if you are willing to accept that literature can describe a way of life, including industrialization, your mind might be enlightened, if only a little bit. The sad fact of industrialization and what it has done to the workforce is fact, not fiction, and that is a product of the free-market era. You want to see free-market problems? Let's look at Rockefeller. Let's look at the railroad system. This is all pre-regulation era. Left to their own devices, corporations failed their country.

Finally, you can hide from the clear dismantling of your "freedom to do what I want" logic, but this is on you. It's your willingness to ignore the fact that society comes together by giving up a little bit of their liberty for the benefit of the whole. That includes roads, school systems, your local hospital emergency room, and more. Your candidate is participating in that system. By voting, you are participating in that system. You cannot participate in a system and then say you're not part of it. You are sadly mistaken if you think a man that is participating in the process is not part of that very same process. If your candidate chooses to participate, responsibility is paramount.