If a politician stood up and spoke the truth about the true causes of USA's misery and propose real solutions?

Question

why would he be accused of being a madman? and why would the main stream do their best to ignore him and marginalize him?

Answer 1

I would vote for him but this will never happen.

Answer 2

No doubt.......and if elelcted....no riding in open cars.....no theater.....and get a food taster.

Answer 3

The financial backers of his/her party would drop them as if they were red hot.

The media would suffocate any report of it.

We can't have people getting to hear the truth, now can we?

Answer 4

the meaning of "truth" and "real solutions" are subjective.  Everyone has their own opinion about they are, thats why people have so many disagreements about politics.  There is no one "right" answer.

Answer 5

its  a sad thing to say but, politics=lies and deceit . it' s as if you expect a cow to come and ask you to make burgers out of him. Or TAKE RESPONSIBILITY THAT ALL THIS IS CAUSED BY BAD POLICIES.

BUT hey no worries, every thing that starts must finish. true for every empire!

Answer 6

Ummmm, we had this person.  His name was Ron Paul, and many ignorant people do call him crazy, and the media DID do their best to ignore and marginalize him.  He pointed out the causes for our problems, and how to solve them.  As to why he was marginalized, I don't really know, to be honest.  It seems he was too conservative for the liberal outlets, and too conservative for the "conservative" outlets lol (Fox News).  The mainstream media, like it or not, loves the status quo.  Without trivial, stupid issues, they'd be hard-pressed to fill their 24 hour schedules.

EDIT

This question seems like it was asked, just to see someone answer with a response regarding Ron Paul.  Does that mean I get best answer? ;-)

EDIT

Does nobody else realize this is exactly what Ron Paul did? lol

Answer 7

A breif history of do gooders in American Politics.:

JFK published a report that detailed the Conserfative Judicial approach to civil rights. It was the Prison Report of 1961, the first of it's kind (I forget the exact wording of the title).

In this report it was detailed what punished crimes were most prevalent in our society; who was in jail by demographic of crime (most were in jail for "vagrancy" ~ the crime of being a good slave to the State by way of being without possession of A $5 BILL WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM A MEMBER OF THE LANDED GENTRY, OR VESTED INTERESTS), his or her likely "full sentance" extrapolated from past experience (most conserfative judges then saw no reason to actually release prisoners when their sentance was up chooing instead to find an excuse to continue the sentance untill death released the prisoner).

VAGRANCY was a civil crime. The judiciary knew people would get "upset" if they hauled off good people (slaves) to work in prisons and chain gangs without real cause, so they did the judicial two step.

The first step was to arrest a great many people for vagrancy, then let most of these go (especially bad guys as then the public would ask them to give greater and greater sentances to vagrants ~ at judicial descression of course). The second step was to arrest those that they had assessed as "good slaves"; now times were deliberately made hard thus by the judiciary ~ as no business can well afford to loose it's best workers to slaving judiciary. But this suited the conserfatives, as bad times for most mean great times and fire sales for the few who hold on to real money (the conserfatives pride themselves on being able to (all but ?) steal money anywhere anytime they need it).

When this report was published there were Liberals in Publishing, unlike now, where the successors of Joseph Goerbels (sic) constantly complain about "liberal press" that they know doesn't really exist anymore, anymore than it did in WWII Germany when dear Joe would wax on and on about the Jewish press in Germany even as the n***s gassed all the Jews they could find.

And the Same Goes on in Communist Nations.

It's always the "other guy" that slanders one's homeland, by deed or policy.

Never the guy in power. Because, Treason succeeds because none dare publish it's treason.

But once upon a time, JFK actually did.

The judiciary likely had him shot for it.

Because, just as with the de@dbeat dad laws today, judicials feel they need "absolute authority" to punish any person they want, without jury trials. And they want the ability to condition the public without any press interference. Just like they had before the President, John Fitgerald Kennedy, screwed them by telling the populace just how ignoble they really were.

They had the nation then, just as they do now, convinced that "civil convictions" do not result in death in prison at hard labor.

Oh, I guess I failed to mention, in 1961 most persons in US prisons and chain gangs were killed within 2 years, on average ~ as published by JFK. This was murder. Clearly the courts were never authorized to kill people without trials, but they did, and do.

So what was killing a "Rat" like JFK to the mass murdering Conserfative Courts?

The result of the public outrage against the courts was Miranda, and etc.

Not until GWB imposed on Texas chain gangs once again in 1980, were jails in the business of selling slave labor.

And de@dbeat dad laws followed.

Because, hey, they needed slaves to sell. And a Date R ape D rug will ussually break up any marriage (or cause the appearance of one that can then be broken up). And "moral outrage" really requires no thought, nor jury, in the USA, to ruin a man.

We all who think know better than to back de@dbeat dad laws; but we have no voice.

And de@dbeat dad laws prevent any person not a President to actually speak to everyone, by "license revocation". (No "Free Press" here folks ~ it's a court licensed "privalidge" to own a press ~ or any other tool (such as a gun), if one "follows" de@dbeat dad civil law".

Presidents can publish to everyone free; it's part of the fringe benifits of the job.

But of course, Judges "get to decide" who is who. And I guess this means who actually is President, because two people might engage in a civil suit in a local court "to determine" who the real President actually is.

Courts are allowed to make identity theft decisions.

And then seal the records of such ~ for the good of the office of course.

So, is there going to be a new President that could challenge the courts?

Are you nuts?

Answer 8

I think he'd get lot's of votes.  I watched Larry King and the wresteler from Minnesota who became the governor out there sounded real good to me.  I don't like either of the candidates, but I'll vote for O'bama to just keep the Republicans out of public office where they keep s******g things up so bad we're losing it.

Our United States is a sinking ship and needs change away from the Republican crazies.

thanks

Answer 9

Pretty hard to believe that the words politician and truth can both be in the same sentence....

Answer 10

It wont happen because the politicians live inside the DC beltway and have no idea what things cost in the real world.  They are coddled and never want for anything its all given them.

Answer 11

Ron Paul has and was embargoed by the media.

Answer 12

People would want to hang them in the town center.