Board 8 > Why is the media ignoring Ron Paul? (stolen practically verbatim from Reddit)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Amen, Sir Reva.

--
chumbucketeer fills cups like double-Ds.
http://img.imgcake.com/chumpngej.png - Art by BIGPUN9999

ya know, the Supreme Court can rule on state laws just as easily as on federal ones.

And that the federal government passing a law and/or constitutional amendment against abortion or gay marriage (which may never happen sure, but is still a real threat) is remarkably more devastating than a state or two (or even twenty-five or even forty-nine) doing the same thing. In that time it's illegal EVERYWHERE, because the Supreme Court is not exactly known for speedy rulings, all of your worst nightmares come true. If a state or two or forty does it, for the same amount of time, the harm is, obviously, significantly decreased.

I mean really.

--
I ****ing love to cuddle.
I'm being oppressed!

PrinceReva posted...
It's ironic that you support the "liberty" of the people, because by allowing the states to decide, you may end up removing a right that people already have, simply by letting people (or worse, legislators) vote on the issue. People shouldn't vote on this, because while it is somewhat a moral issue, it's much more of a safety issue, and allowing the people to vote on safety issues sets a dangerous precedent.

So, instead of leaving the issue up to 50 states to decide individually, it should be all-or-nothing at the federal level? And that's okay because for the moment it's legal nationwide? I mean, with the GOP on the prowl it could just as easily be outlawed, and then what would you be saying? Depending on your stance it could be "Yes, the federal government has solved this injustice!" or "****! The federal government just trampled on another personal choice and liberty of the people!"

I'd sooner take the 50 states to decide and take the hike to the next state over if it came down to it.

Of course, the only way it could be outlawed is by someone bringing a lawsuit to the Supreme Court that questioned the legality of abortion as a whole, and the Court would have to say that it's illegal. It's not a legislation thing any more. And there are plenty of states who are trying to limit/discourage it, just look at Texas. They now require an ultrasound before an abortion (hope you have health insurance!), and there are plenty of states putting limitations on the procedure.

Right now, abortion is just a dogwhistle for Republican candidates to attract the religious right. "Those Democrats love abortion, and we plan to stop it", nevermind that they can't actually stop it, just restrict it. Granted, Ron Paul being president I don't think would make things any worse on this front, simply because he wouldn't actually *do* anything about it, but the goal is to fix it, not to ignore it. (and by fix, I mean limit the amount of limitations that can be put on the procedure, because there shouldn't be things like ultrasounds required before an abortion can take place)

CeraSeptem posted...
ya know, the Supreme Court can rule on state laws just as easily as on federal ones.

And that the federal government passing a law and/or constitutional amendment against abortion or gay marriage (which may never happen sure, but is still a real threat) is remarkably more devastating than a state or two (or even twenty-five or even forty-nine) doing the same thing. In that time it's illegal EVERYWHERE, because the Supreme Court is not exactly known for speedy rulings, all of your worst nightmares come true. If a state or two or forty does it, for the same amount of time, the harm is, obviously, significantly decreased.

I mean really.

There's already a law being challenged in the legal system that could make it to the Supreme Court, which could potentially make gay marriage legal. And most states already have those laws on the books. The states that have legalized it have either passed laws that essentially repeal the laws on the books now (see: New York), or the Supreme Court in the state has declared that law unconstitutional (see: Iowa). The law on the Federal level is also currently "There shall be no gay marriages", which means that nothing has to be done if you want it to be illegal. A constitutional amendment will never happen (there wouldn't be enough support for it), which means that the only change that can happen is either more states making laws or having current laws being declared unconstitutional, or a federal level law/declaration of unconstitutionality. Sure, states making it legal is good, but a much quicker solution (contrary to what you're saying) is a national legalization. Even if the Supreme Court were to declare a law banning gay marriage constitutional, that would mean it's still legal in New York, and other states with laws on the books, it wouldn't automatically ban it everywhere. A federal level ruling against would hurt it, certainly, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

Of course the mainsteam media is ignoring ron paul. they always ignore politicians like him and dennis kucinich because they actually believe the things they are saying and aren't just corporate stooges. I disagree with ron paul on most things, but I at least respect him for being an honest politician.

--
I'm "kind of a big deal".
http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png

I would also like to point out that the ames straw poll is entirely media hype and means nothing, it is literally campaigns paying people to vote for them and bribing them with entertainment and food. So, him doing well in it doesn't really mean anything for his viability overall. Especially since the winner of Iowa does not even always win.

--
I'm "kind of a big deal".
http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png

Every major civil rights gain for black people was made at the federal level, wasn't it? Like at no point did "reserving the decision for each state" move us along appropriately, there was always a bunch of southern states stuck being awful people. I am usually pretty skeptical of states rights arguments.

it is literally campaigns paying people to vote for them and bribing them with entertainment and food.

They bribe with a lot more than that. I live in Iowa and I got at least a half dozen calls offering me various things if I would go to Ames and vote for their person.

--
"Hope is allowed to be stupid, unwise, and naive." ~Sir Chris

Every major civil rights gain for black people was made at the federal level, wasn't it?

Uh, no, this isn't true at all. Every northern state decided to free the slaves, grant voting rights, etc. LONG before the federal government did! Now, if you mean "the only way to force civil rights on the entire nation at once is federal legislation then you might have a point, but that's sort of obvious isn't it?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

yoshifan823 posted...
Yeah, Bachmann isn't making it either.

It's Romney v Perry at this point, and no matter who wins, Republicans lose.

Yup, there it is. How has the Republican party managed to become so awful lately?

--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch

Oh, and for everyone whose excuse for the sorry, pathetic, media is "the straw poll doesn't matter," you're missing the issue entirely. They're COVERING the straw poll. It would be one thing to completely ignore it on the logic of "it doesn't matter" but if you're going to pay attention to it, the least you could do is report the facts, which are that Ron Paul did pretty damn well in it.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

SmartMuffin posted...
Oh, and for everyone whose excuse for the sorry, pathetic, media is "the straw poll doesn't matter," you're missing the issue entirely. They're COVERING the straw poll. It would be one thing to completely ignore it on the logic of "it doesn't matter" but if you're going to pay attention to it, the least you could do is report the facts, which are that Ron Paul did pretty damn well in it.

Literally 1% behind Bachman, and CNN at least was making it out to be some huge victory for her, while completely ignoring Paul.

--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch

Also, what you have to keep in mind (and the only reason he has a chance here) is that Ron Paul's base really isn't compatible with anyone else in the field.

Romney gets the moderate/RINO votes.

Paul gets the libertarian votes.

Bachmann and Perry are left to fight over the "right-wing conservative" votes.

Should be interesting, to say the least.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

I find state's rights to basically just mean "let the south/midwest keep sucking until the feds catch up to the rest of the country and force them to". I can't think of any situation where, say, lots of states legalized a civil rights issue only to have it banned by the federal government, because once an issue is popular enough to be legalized in several states it is popular enough to not get banned at the federal level. On the flip side, it seems harder to UNBAN something, like gay marriage, even if it is legal in some states, because it doesn't have the support necessary to get the plurality of support it needs at that level. So it is a kind of tough question...on one hand, you have people staying oppressed in the south/midwest vs. it taking longer to get the rights everywhere because support takes time to build federally.

and nobody was defending the media for that...i pointed out the straw poll doesn't matter because a) the media covers it as if it does matter...a LOT, making them even more ridiculous and b) just to say that ron paul doing well in it doesn't mean he will do well in the primaries even if the media covered him

but I didn't mean that as a defense of the media ignoring him, as obviously my post attacked them for doing that.

--
I'm "kind of a big deal".
http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png

SmartMuffin posted...
Oh, and for everyone whose excuse for the sorry, pathetic, media is "the straw poll doesn't matter," you're missing the issue entirely. They're COVERING the straw poll. It would be one thing to completely ignore it on the logic of "it doesn't matter" but if you're going to pay attention to it, the least you could do is report the facts, which are that Ron Paul did pretty damn well in it.

They do report that he did well in it, unless they didn't show the vote totals at all. What's the story there? "Man with lots of dedicated fans proves he has lots of dedicated fans"? How about "Crazy Lady wins popularity contest, can she win something with meaning?" The second one has a question at the end of it. If you put the same question at the end of the first story, the answer is pretty simply "No". Ron Paul has proven that internet popularity and the ability to do well in polls like this doesn't have much of a bearing on how well he'll do in the caucuses. I'll admit this is a bit different than 4 years ago, but I think it will end up with the same result. The only difference is that this is a weaker field, he might pick up a few (very few, though) extra votes. He's gonna stay pretty consistent.

In short, the media ignored him because ratings. It's pretty ****ty, but it's true.

SlymDayspring posted...
I find state's rights to basically just mean "let the south/midwest keep sucking until the feds catch up to the rest of the country and force them to". I can't think of any situation where, say, lots of states legalized a civil rights issue only to have it banned by the federal government, because once an issue is popular enough to be legalized in several states it is popular enough to not get banned at the federal level. On the flip side, it seems harder to UNBAN something, like gay marriage, even if it is legal in some states, because it doesn't have the support necessary to get the plurality of support it needs at that level. So it is a kind of tough question...on one hand, you have people staying oppressed in the south/midwest vs. it taking longer to get the rights everywhere because support takes time to build federally..

Gay marriage is, in all likelyhood, gonna end up in the supreme court before any laws get passed on a federal level. Also, stop saying midwest, unless you add an "except Iowa" clause, because Iowa.

Also, with any luck, it'll be "except Iowa and Minnesota" soon.

If the media gave him more coverage, he'd have even less of a chance to win.

--
"would a sausage by any other name smell as sweet?"

Also, what you have to keep in mind (and the only reason he has a chance here) is that Ron Paul's base really isn't compatible with anyone else in the field.

Enter Perry. Did you hear his comments about the Fed chairman today? Those were controversial, but won't damage his image, and the comments curry favor to the nutjob Bachmann/Paul crowd. There will always be diehards who refuse to get behind Perry (because, I don't know, he supports the Department of Education or something "unconstitutional" like that), but it's pretty clear that in the inevitable Romney/Perry showdown, Perry has already locked the Tea Party.

He's a fox, that Perry.

--
~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp

If the media gave him more coverage, he'd have even less of a chance to win.

Also this. Expertly said.

--
~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Gay marriage is, in all likelyhood, gonna end up in the supreme court before any laws get passed on a federal level. Also, stop saying midwest, unless you add an "except Iowa" clause, because Iowa.

Also, with any luck, it'll be "except Iowa and Minnesota" soon.

Also, it is worth pointing out that civil unions are also legal in both Illinois and Wisconsin. I'm not sure what to call it, but that whole Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan swath is a relatively liberal, progressive area of the country.

--
Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

All the Paul supporters would lose their indie cred!

--
.