-18 votes

Does Ron Pauls subscription TV channel leave a bad taste in your mouth?

I think he's burning the good faith and credit earned with his fans during the election by asking for subscriptions.

I keep getting calls to action, and the only action is to subscribe. I hate to be rude and unsubscribe from his mailing, but I think that's tacky.

Can't believe he's asking for subscriptions when, a) he's got more money than most his supporters, and b) in today's world who subscribes for anything? Time Magazine - not!

It's probably a dead-end concept in today's facebook, youtube, advertising driven world.

What do you think?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Excellent first comment. Welcome.

Welcome, Manuel

well said

This post leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

there are good vids on there, I enjoy not watching the other garbage on TV and getting more in depth interviews.

Stop being a moocher.


I think we need to get back

I think we need to get back to a tradition of expecting to pay for things that have value and expecting the things we've paid for to have value.

Close your mouth

while you listen.

it tastes like freedom

and liberty

I think it sucks, but I pay

I think it sucks, but I pay mostly in support of Dr. Paul. Thanks for reminding me that I was on auto-withdrawl. Ron is great, the interviews are great but the show in general is cheesy. I find myself waiting a couple weeks for multiple episodes to be released so I can watch several in one evening. One could just wait a year, sign up for one month only, and have full access. Maybe that would be a better option for you.

This thread


In my opinion

The previews for RPC show episodes should be a few minutes.

ten bucks well spent

The interview with Jesse Ventura this month was worth the price alone.

The channel has changed my views on Rand Paul. I've felt let down by him in the past. Watching him and his dad sit down and chat about family, politics and philosophy in an unfiltered relaxed manner has changed my views on him. I have great hope for him again. Dennis Kucinich, Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald. The interviews are what make the show. Diana Alvear adds a professional touch and she's nice to look at.

All in all, I feel I'm getting my money's worth. I feel like my $10 is supporting an advertiser-free alternative media outlet that is free from corporate pressures. I hope it grows enough for some real in depth journalism. And I'd like a forum where subscribers can discuss the episodes.

Does anyone know how many subscribers he has? I wonder if it's a few hundred or hundreds of thousands.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

2 problems with rand

that ron's inteview with did not satisfy; even with dad he looked to be uncomfortable at times dishing out his usual doubletalk.

1. what the hell is your foreign policy, exactly?

2. why try and make muslims the new commies? (now don't get me wrong there are some good ones) he has said: pandering BS.

i keep an eye on rand as he makes a good point now and again, but still i await a true peace candidate.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Did I disappoint you? Leave a bad taste in your mouth?



You act like you never had love
And you won't need to go without

If free is your price...

Check these out:

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

No automatic withdrawals

I don't like that there is only one payment method: automatic withdrawal. I might try on a trial basis if I could pay for three months as a lump sum. Sticking with the channel would be if he really gave the low down on how to change things, really delved into current controversies, and/or really got into the philosophy of things. As a reader said earlier, get people who have different opinions on education, economics etc so that the choir being preached to can learn new things.


I fully support auto-withdrawal.

It takes and provides commitment, which is what this r3VOLution is all about.

Auto-withdrawal allows me to cancel if I wish [which I do not], and allows me to sign in and watch anytime anywhere, without risk of missing a single current episode because I may have forgot to re-up.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Glad you are a supporter

I am glad that you are finding the channel worthwhile. However, giving different payment options might allow the channel to reach more people.


What I don't understand about it

Why doesn't he have sponsors?

I would think that there is advertizing is something that supporters would want to see, and he could have it arranged as sponsors he supports, and those who are there because they support him, and those who are there because traffic = cash flow.

Even if he asked for donations, or had a lot of contests where people could win books, CDs, coins, things from sponsors.. have a classified section.

It would be great to have satalite stations of his channel on blogs.

I also think it would be great of his channel gave artists opportunity.. and I think it would be great to have Carol on and show us a family recipe, interveiw family and friends who have books, there's plenty of ways for the RPC to add variety, opportunity, and profit better than a flat subscription, that if it wasn't for someone on DP reminding me, I completely forgot about having it having the interveiw with Rand.

Ron is free from external influence.

Sponsors would [potentially] contaminate that.

Cash flow, imo, is not his objective, outside of operational expense.

Buy Carols book if you want recipes. Perhaps initiate a soiree, and invite his friends and relatives to learn more about them.

Ron Paul, again imo, is conducting his channel in a free market to educate newcomers and followers, so that we may continue to gain perspective and reach out to others.

Many people miss the point of RPC, even ones who have followed him for years.

Rant aside, Hi Granger, I hope all is well with you :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


How would "rEVOLution badges" for example, contaminate that?

ON, so get the sponsors to produce the operation...

I have Carol's book, and I think she's charming, and interesting, and one of the things to love about Ron Paul is Carol.

I could be one of those who followed Ron for years and I don't "get" the RPC. I appreciate all the times you reminded me to watch.. I think I watched twice.

Gearing up for my committee meeting.. glad the convention is over, glad I went.. prepping for winter.. working.. hope you're well too!

"What do you think?"

It sounds like your mind is already made up.

I voted you down, btw, for complete and utter lack of understanding.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Either way you're gonna pay.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Advertisers aren't into charity work - they buy ads for the purpose of selling products. That means that some viewers buy their products. That means that viewers are expected to spend about $10 per month either way.

Or think about it this way - 3 shows a week times 5 minutes of ads per episode = over 60 minutes spent watching ads.

If your time is worth $10 per hour you'd be better off paying the $10 and getting your hour back.

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

I for one

will not pay for a subscription, it looks like Ron Paul is going for money not spreading a message, unlike Alex Jones who asks for subscriptions, but doesn't restrict his info from getting out, even his movies he puts on youtube for free.

Alex Jones is only able to do that because...

he's on satellite radio and AM radio in pockets all across the nation. His aim is to get the message out ASAP. His msg is also more dire and urgent.

So those sources of revenue pay for the overheads of his operation. He also sells his own stuff. So if you think Alex Jones's operation is free, you're totally missing the whole picture.

I didn't say his operation is free

I would argue Ron Paul's message is dire and urgent as well, but hey Ron Paul can run his channel the way he wants, but I think it's a mistake to only allow paid members to see his material.

Then how is he going to keep

Then how is he going to keep paid members from paying?

There's no incentive to be a paid member if content is free. It loses its exclusivity. W/o paid members, how does he keep the lights on?

I believe his show will serve as an instrument to raise big bucks for political purposes. What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is that his viewership hasn't broken 6 figures. I want to see millions of paid viewers--that would equate to 10s of millions of dollars toward the liberty movement.

Ron Paul isn't charging money to get rich. There's a bigger plan here.

RE: "Then how is he going to keep paid members from paying?"

Are geniuses obligated to offer brilliant suggestions for free?

Seriously, who would pay if

Seriously, who would pay if it was free?

I think Ron Paul wants to make more progress politically but he needs money. Obviously he can't spark enough interest to get donations so he's testing the idea of offering a news channel to draw in 10 bucks/month.

I think he wants to use those profits for a bigger political purpose. As there are no more money bombs, I believe he's trying to justify a $10/monthly "donation" by offering the news channel in return...just my thoughts.

The market will decide

If there is one thing our little segment of the movement does not lack, it is media.

Start with the Alex Jones Show, then the Lew Rockwell Show, the Peter Schiff Show, add the Tom Woods Show. King World News. The Robert Wenzel Show. Now you have Ben Swann. Certainly there must be others I'm forgetting.

None of these outlets charge money. Ron Paul has the name cachet - he can charge money, and some people are willing to pay it. One guy down below he says he pays money and he doesn't even listen.

Ron Paul is a businessman, and if this is worth his time, he'll continue to do it.

The problem is that there seems to be a great amount of saturation. All the same guests make the same circuit. Lew Rockwell interviews Ron Paul, then he goes one Ron's Show and Ron Paul interviews Lew. Tom interviews Ron; Peter interviews Ben, etc.

I'm not sure that Ron's show adds much to the free conversation that is going on, but again, the market will decide.

There is only so much time in the day. The Diamond Dog donated to both campaigns, but does not feel the need for further donations.

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Here is my two cents

The channel does not make much sense, because it does not spread anything, the info remains within the same circle of people. It would be good if he was giving some points for free which could have been spread around.

On the other side, both Ron and Rand are active toward positive directions. They need money to make as much impact as possible. Finally, members of his huge family might have problems finding jobs because of their uncle, grand-uncle, grandfather... with big mouth. They deserve to be fed, since they gave us so much good feelings in these miserable times of greed and aggression.

Funny thing is that Ron Paul is so much against collectivism. But, his main contribution is that we felt so good as a community gathering around a clever and honorable man.

You're better off paying Ben

You're better off paying Ben Swann's videos over Ron Paul's, mainly because it better produced and informative. Ron Paul is good philospher, and educator but he's not seasoned journalist.