Why does the media seem to mostly ignore Ron Paul?

I think it’s because he is honest and has some legitimate points.

@everephebe…Isn’t that a good thing?....><

You would think.^

Because he comes across as a bit of a crank TV, has some ideas that many consider kooky, and he has absolutely no chance of being elected President.

Aside from that, he’s great.

@Rarebear What is crank TV? What ideas of his that many consider to be kooky? Why does he have no chance of being elected?

The reason that Ron Paul is not taken seriously is this…he is the only politician who is telling the truth. Americans don’t want to know the truth. We have a society that thrives on living drugged, anesthetized, drunk, asleep, mind-mesmerized by TV. He is dismissed as a “kook” because the idea that this man might be speaking the truth is a lot more horrible and scary than most Americans used to tiny “sound bites” can absorb. Remember Americans get their news from Jon Stewart . Paul doesn’t have bells, whistles, cute smiles, “Let me make you feeeeeel goooood so you will vote for me.” He’s a basic guy
with a message. He is not a media-made Ken doll.

“If we don’t pay attention…all our problems will go away,” is how Americans think.

Ron Paul is asking people to pay attention…that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes. Admitting that, however, would mean that they were duped.

No one wants to admit that. So while Paul tells people that the Emperor is naked, people will continue imagining him (the government) in the most beautiful garb possible. It is easier to do that….than to even begin to imagine that everyone has been living a very grand and very expensive hedonistic lie.

(Pass the remote and the Twinkies…let’s all eat very bad cake.)

@DarlingRhadamanthus I’m American and I don’t think that way! It is unfair that I have to been seen as a stereotypical American fool because our leaders are!(Not all but most)

That is beyond sad that Americans don’t want to know the truth. What the hell? Why? Isn’t there a saying the truth will set you free. Being American is about being free and freedom, and without truth you don’t have it do you?

I want to know the truth! If I didn’t I wouldn’t ask all these questions.

@CuriousLoner…..I’m American, too. I was (of course) speaking of the “sheeple”, not you or the other people who seem to think for themselves.

Exactly…without truth, you cannot ever be free.

I still have hope for Ron Paul. He is the closest to truth in my book.

Probably for the same reason why Kim Kardashian gets so much air time.

The biggest issue that he supports that’s completely bat-shit crazy is the return to the gold standard and dissolving the Federal Reserve. I can assure you that anyone who has had at least 1 semester of macroeconomics can tell you that this would annihilate the US economy. First of all, there’s not enough gold in existence to represent all of the assets out there, secondly, the Federal Reserve is in place to tame the market’s natural inclination towards severe volatility. Read up about Tulip Bulbs and how crazy markets can become (even with hard gold currency). The Fed can speed up the economy to help reduce the damage in a downswing and it can slow down the economy if it starts booming out of control (and generating lots of inflation in the process). Believe it or not, but without the Fed, the housing bubble collapse could have been MUCH, MUCH worse than it is now. I’m not sure what his stance on the fractional-reserve banking system is, but as far as I understand it, without fiat currency banks aren’t going to be able to lend money, which means people can’t buy houses, cars, start businesses, etc.

Also he holds some radical religious views such as prayer in school, defining legal personhood in the constitution at the instant of conception, and claims that Science supports creationism (it doesn’t). He also supports equal funding for abstinence-only sex ed—which has been shown to dramatically increase the number of teen-pregnancies (and ultimately abortions).

It’s not all terrible though, he’s one of the few Republicans who actually are willing to cut spending for conservative causes. Most Republicans simply use small government as a smoke screen to defund liberal interests, while spending like crazy on defense, corporate welfare, and conservative programs. Medicare part D is a great example.

I love the guys approach to foreign policy. But on social issues he is Paultarded. And his Fed rant is completely nonsensical. He was trained as a gynecologist and I have a degree in econ. Would you let me give you a pap smear?

@gorillapaws If he even became president, can even shut down the Federal Reserve like he wants to? I don’t think he can do that..?

I read the story there on Tulip Bulbs more or less the Federal Reserve is to keep things in balance?Had there been a “Tulip reserve” things might have been ok?

Can’t say I know enough on the Federal Reserve, but why is it that them being audited such a big deal?

@johnpowell I agree to an extent. But to be fair George Bush or Obama didn’t have degrees in economics pretty sure…I don’t see why they were more fit to handle economics…

@CuriousLoner :: The difference is Ron Paul has been very clear on his economic policy. Obama and Bush made it very clear that they had “Detail People” since they didn’t know the details.

Ron Paul doesn’t have enough support to be taken seriously as a contender. He gets coverage, but the media isn’t going to waste their time or space to cover someone who really doesn’t have a chance to win the Iowa Caucus or split the conservative vote.

They’re scared of him.

Who??? jk

The press doesn’t see him as having any legs to continue.
I hope he does well. I like his money management ideas, but don’t like his isolationist attitude.

Because the media is owned by corporations and Ron Paul believes that corporations are not people.
Why would corporate owned media show any support to a candidate who is against corporate personhood? It goes against their best interest. The news isn’t meant to inform the public, it is meant to make money for it’s parent companies by whatever means necessary, even if that includes misleading the public.

@johnpowell

The “detail people” are the very same people that were in office when all of this crap began.
Ron Paul debates Federal Reserve Governor in 1983
If he knows nothing abut economics, how come he has been predicting our exact situation since the 70s? The housing bubble, high unemployment, high inflation, stats being adjusted to make inflation and money supply seem less than they are…. These are all things that he has predicted, that the “detail people” said they were fixing.

@to all against Ron Paul
Just curious, have any of you read any of his books?

Here in the land of the free, the news media outlets tell us what information we need to know.

Sad to say, because he looks puny? Think Ross Perot, Dukakis, Nader. Give him Mitt’s or Perry’s look or Sarah Palin’s male version look and he would be on TV so much you would puke. The whole dumb media is just one ridiculous huge fashion show.

I think the pro-life/pro-choice debate has pretty much run its course, no? Bush was pro-life, and abortions are still legal (and still funded by tax dollars). No president will ever be able to repeal Roe v. Wade. Even if Ron Paul could, he doesn’t say he wants to make all abortions illegal in the USA. He merely wants to leave it up to each state to decide (you know, the way our Constitution was written?)

And do you honestly believe that any President could mandate prayer in schools? Get real.

It is the Federal Reserve’s monkeying with the monetary system that set up the situation that allowed the housing bubble to happen (and, of course, its subsequent burst). Inflation has been increasing to the ridiculous level that it is now, while the dollar has been devaluing ever since the Fed’s inception. It began increasing at even more alarming levels once Nixon took us off the Gold Standard for good. (Fractional reserve banking did happen prior to that, btw). Every government in the history of the world that has gone from the Gold Standard to a fiat currency has seen that currency collapse (often taking the government/nation with it). To call Paul’s insistence that the Fed is doing us more harm than good crazy is to ignore centuries of economic history.

He is ignored by the media because the MSM represents the interests of those in power. He is a threat to that power, whether right or left. If his ideas were to take root, we might see a new American Revolution. The Powers That Be will do whatever they can to keep the population dependent on them.

Apart from his kooky ideas about the Fed, he wants to remove all responsibility for things like health care, social security, the environment, and education from the federal government, and foist them on the states. So, because they will not all have enough money to support them, and because their leaders will have different ideologies, you will have a greater division between “have” states and “have not” states.

The trouble with Ron Paul is that so many of his ideas are good ones that are not being offered by more serious candidates.

@dappled_leaves Why do you not consider RP a “serious” candidate?

The Constitution doesn’t give authority to the federal government to handle things like health care, social security, the environment or education. Not to mention the Fed. Wow, a Presidential candidate who wants to limit the power of the federal government to the powers given it by it’s governing document. Kooky.

That’s just it, what big government to one is just the right size for another. : )

The size of the American federal government is not something that should be left up to anyone’s opinion. It is clearly stated in the Constitution—the very document upon which it was founded. Unfortunately, Americans have decided that security is more important than freedom. Ironically, this government can guarantee them neither.

@Poser – so? That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t do these things anyway. The US has grown far beyond what it was when the constitution was written… and in any case, the constitution has already been amended significantly.

I think an issue of Ron Paul’s appeal to the masses is that while some of his platform is appealing to most people, there are parts of his platform that appall them at the same time.

His smaller government, lower taxes, and lassiez-faire economy positions are appealing to moderate republicans, but his vehement opposition to war, and the military-industrial complex is going to alienate him from people who have money and power that could support him, and his libertarian social attitude will piss off the holy crusaders.

And while liberals will like his anti-war slash the military budget positions, as well as some of his opinions on social issues, they’re going to be seriously bristled by his pushing for a free market, and gutting the federal government and killing programs designed to help people.

It’s frustrating, even if I don’t agree with him. He’s like one of the few Republicans that has ideas, and they don’t start with “Blame the liberals”, and nobody wants to listen to him.

@sinscriven – you have it exactly. It is frustrating from the left, as well.

@dappled_leaves: Every “benefit” the federal government “bestows” upon Americans, is really just a freedom they are taking away from Americans. The government does nothing in a vacuum. It doesn’t produce anything. Everything it does, every dollar it spends, is taken from the wallet of an American. In other words, every dollar I receive in the form of a child tax credit, or an earned income credit, or medicare, or medicaid or any other form of government “benefit” was taken from another American. The average American now works almost half of each year to pay for such benefits.

The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights cost no one anything, except the recipients of those rights. They are natural rights. My right to free speech doesn’t cost you anything. My right to practice my religion costs you nothing. My “right” to affordable healthcare provided by the government (which isn’t anywhere in the Constitution), costs you plenty.

So yeah, that’s exactly what it means. The government shouldn’t do those things you mention. It is theft, and it is immoral.

I think it’s because he has ran every year and hasn’t come close to winning.

@sinscriven In other words, his ideas are good enough to piss off everyone.

@Poser – well, the majority of Americans disagree with your interpretation of the text. Why work so hard to preserve something that America has outgrown?

@dappled_leaves Do they? On what do you base that statement? If it is true, then perhaps I’m in the wrong country. I have no respect for a nation that would voluntarily enslave themselves.

@CuriousLoner the Fed can’t (and shouldn’t) prevent people from investing in stupid things, but if they see the economy going into bizarre-o territory, they’re supposed to increase the interest rates and decrease the money supply. This mechanism makes it harder for people to buy things speculatively and reduces the insanity. There are still going to be ups and downs in the market, but the highs will be less high and the lows will be less low. Ultimately, this is a much more stable and healthy economic environment for citizens and businesses and promotes a healthier economy as a whole.

The point with the tulip bulbs was that it’s still possible to have crazy market swings even when using hard currency. Without paper money, and a fed there’s no tool to reduce the impact of the market’s natural tendency to behave very erratically.

It’s arguable that the Fed should have done a much better job at anticipating the housing bubble, and stepped in earlier to slow things down. It’s failures don’t indicate that the Fed should be dissolved, but that it needs to have more teeth, and be run better. It would be like having a local sherif run his police department poorly, this wouldn’t indicate that that town should dissolve the police department, but that they should fire the sherif and run things properly.

@Poser… every poll I’ve seen regarding Americans’ views on social security and medicare shows that the majority of Americans support these programs / don’t want to see cuts to these programs.

Social programs paid for by tax dollars in no way represent enslavement. I am not going to argue the point further.

@dappled_leaves They don’t represent enslavement until they are programs which you don’t support. But try to stop supporting them and tell me how free you feel.

He reminds me a lot of Ross Perot. Some good ideas, but a tad crazy around the edges.

@Poser That’s ridiculous. My taxes pay for many things I don’t support, first and foremost, war. I do not feel enslaved.

His own party, the Republicans, dismiss him and snicker in his presence. I think Ron Paul is one of the most honest politicans out there, I like that. I think the politucians who treat him rudely are awful. If your own group doesn’t take you seriously, it is unlikely the media will. I also agree with @DarlingRhadamanthus that many Americans don’t want to know the truth, or don’t know the truth when it is right in front of their face. There is data supporting this regarding people in the Republican party, I am sure the Democrats have their blind followers also, and so new opinions are not received well, people don’t know how to take in the information.

The most dangerous thing about Paul is his gold-standard lunacy. I hope nobody takes him seriously enough to where he gets elected.

[mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

I know that Ron Paul believes in returning to a gold standard…well, that would be shot down quickly, anyway. It wouldn’t happen.@laureth.

He should be taken seriously because he (along with Leahy) are two people who are willing to stick their necks out. I know he is running on the Repub ticket….but he is not a Republican at all in my book….just look at how the Republicans are desperate to disavow him and his views.

I am really for someone who is not afraid to simply say, “We have had enough wars…we need that money here at home. Enough is enough.”

Because he does not agree that there is a moral force that empowers the government to take from the makers, and give to the takers.
That is the current cultural law of the land, and woe to those who oppose it.
I am beaten down by it, and too busy working, so I keep paying, and not rebelling, like almost everybody else. But then again, I am not running for president.

@CuriousLoner Sorry for the delay. I meant a “crank on TV.”
He won’t be elected because the Republican electorate won’t nominate him.

@DarlingRhadamanthus – I hope that “it would never happen.” But when I look at the political landscape around me, and see how many ideas that were “lunatic fringe right wing” in Goldwater’s time are now mainstream Republican proposals, I’m not so sure you’re right.

Because he’s apparently “unelectable.” I don’t really think so…

@augustlan Just because one doesn’t feel enslaved, doesn’t mean that one is free.

Most men, after a little freedom, have preferred authority with the consoling assurances and the economy of effort which it brings. ~Walter Lippmann, A Preface to Morals, 1929

Ron Paul is a closer adherent to the professed Republican ideals than any Republican politician in recent memory (maybe all time).

@Poser what about the freedom of a rape victim to make the decision to not have to bear her rapist’s child? I hear a lot of idealism about freedom, but it sounds like Ron Paul wants to remove a lot of the protections that have been put in place since the wide scale exploitation that occurred durring the Gilded Age. I don’t at all see how returning to the social/economic conditions that led up to the great depression is at all a desirable goal, and seems to ignore many of the lessons history has taught us.

What good are lower tax rates when the Robber Barrons are allowed to create conditions that force people into economic desperation, and then exploit them? If you completely unshackle big business from regulatory oversight they are going to engage in anti-competitive practices, exploit workers, buy politicians, and do things that benefit insiders at the expense of shareholders, not to mention externalizing their costs onto society in the form of pollution. You will see the middle class devolve into poverty even faster than it already is occurring.

@DarlingRhadamanthus if someone is capable of promoting a policy that is so universally rejected by the experts in that field, it indicates they’re so convinced they’re right that they’re unwilling to consider rational alternative. It’s the same mentality that convinces George Bush 2 that Iraq had WMDs, and ultimately led to a VERY costly war for the American people in terms of incerasing the debt, lives of soldiers, families moving onward without their parent, veterans who are disabled with PTSD, and great loss of respect from the international community. I don’t want to see America have a president like that ever again in my lifetime.

It boils down (sadly) to charisma and looks. Which says everything about the we, the people, and the media. He is, by far, the only candidate that speaks the truth every time he opens his mouth and the only one remotely qualified to run the country in its current state. He is not a ‘career politician’ and has no tricks up his sleeve aka being heavily influenced the lobbyist and such to do their bidding. This country is simply not used to that kind of candidate. This is how it used to be when this country was founded. Men successful already in their profession (business, doctor, lawyer, etc) would be asked to transfer their experience to running the country and were asked to run for office. They were summed up by their personal success. Not like today were you are summed up on what you look like, what you look like with your family, what your voice sounds like, are you witty, do you come across as charismatic, and finally, how long have you been in politics? That last one should actually be used to disqualify you if you’ve been at it forever and have never done anything else. This country is similar to running a business and you better know how to run a business if you are going to take a crack at it.

@Jaybee, please don’t get me wrong. I respect alot of what Rand stands for. But to say he isn’t a career politician isn’t factual. He has been involved in politics for most of his life. He has been in elected office since 1974.

@gorillapaws: First, Ron Paul doesn’t want to make abortion illegal. He simply wants to take it out of the realm of federal government jurisdiction: a place it never belonged to begin with. Second, it wasn’t government that made the US economy the largest and strongest in the history of the world (and created the middle class); it was business. But it will be government that destroys it. The industries that caused the real-estate bubble are among the most regulated in the world. Instead of serving the interests of the average US citizen, the regulatory commisions serve the interests of those industries they are meant to regulate. Monopolies cannot exist (at least for any great length of time) without government interference. And if you think that regulated corporations don’t “engage in anti-competitive practices, exploit workers, buy politicians, and do things that benefit insiders at the expense of shareholders, not to mention externalizing their costs onto society in the form of pollution,” then you are too naive.

I really can’t continue to have this conversation. We are arguing from two separate paradigms. To me, the most important virtue, the highest value in life, is freedom. It seems you and every other liberal or socialist (and increasingly, an alarming number of self-professed conservatives) I have ever had a conversation with are more than willing to abrogate your personal freedoms (not to mention those of your fellow Americans) for the hope of some security. I only wonder how much freedom you are willing to lose until you realize the trap you crawled into. And I wonder how betrayed you will feel when you realize that the security that the government promised you is not a guarantee.

@Poser He supports a “Human Life” amendment to the constitution.

Could you please clarify how “Monopolies cannot exist (at least for any great length of time) without government interference,” because I learned in history class that Roosevelt was the one to break up the monopolies in the early 1900’s. I certainly think that corporations do these things now, but those behaviors are at least kept in check to some degree by government regulation. I believe there should be more of this, not less.

If you read the history books, people were less free during the Gilded Age. People were forced by their employers to work incredibly long hours, in dangerous conditions, for slave wages, and were often paid in currency that could only be used at the company store which sold goods at inflated prices. You’re argument is ignoring the fact that it’s one of the government’s most important responsibilities to protect the freedoms of the people from being trampled on by other people and organizations. Look at countries that have very weak or no central governments for examples of how this is disastrous on the people. Take Somalia for example. The people there are “free” from government’s rules/regulations, but I doubt you could find a single Somali (who’s not a warlord) that would claim to be more free than someone living in the US.

@bkcunningham In my 2¢ I was talking about Ron Paul. Did you mean to say Ron Paul instead of Rand?

Yes, I did mean to say Ron. Thank you, @Jaybee. My mistake.