On December 07 2011 15:04 Falling wrote: That could be a very lonely debate.
I don't know what to make of the Trump debate. I know very little about Trump and the little I do, I don't like. Is he a major political thinker? No, but then neither is the media for that matter. But given his rather ridiculous birther comments/ that PR fiasco, I'd distance myself from that guy.
See, I'm not sure what to make of these special interest groups running the debates in the first place. And that's not just Trump, but also that Family group, or the Jewish council, or for that matter Rick Warren from the last election cycle. Does it give too much control to these groups (they can, for instance choose to exclude certain candidates- like the Jewish council and Ron Paul.) I just haven't thought about what the impact is (or perhaps it's minimal). Is that how it's always been? If you have enough clout, then you can host your own personal debate? It has the potential to politicize even the decision to accept an invitation to a debate. If an atheist think-tank hosted a debate for instance, or a Muslim group. You can be sure that candidates would use their decision to attend the debates (or decline as is more likely) as part of their campaign. But will that be a growing trend where attendance or non-attendance is itself part of the debate? It would seem to erode the very notion of debate. Attendance of a debate ought to be non-partisan.
I'm mostly familiar with our Canadian consortium of media networks with two leader's debates: one in English and one in French. I think in 2006, we had all of four. But it was a media consortium, not the Fraser Institute or rich Canadian moguls hosting debates.
There's nothing wrong with allowing interest groups running debates - so what if they choose to exclude certain candidates and include others? So what if they have agendas? It's a free country and people are free to be informed in whichever ways they wish. Why should news stations and universities have monopolies on where candidates put forward their messages? And what the fuck why shouldn't an atheist group be allowed to host a debate? Presidents should be challenged on their beliefs and held accountable to people who are interested to know.
At first it makes sense to have the 'freedom of speech' type argument apply to these debates, where anyone can host a debate. But then think about the kind of influence on what message gets relayed to the public from these debates, and think about the mess America is already in from special interest groups meddling with political affairs.
On December 07 2011 15:04 Falling wrote: That could be a very lonely debate.
I don't know what to make of the Trump debate. I know very little about Trump and the little I do, I don't like. Is he a major political thinker? No, but then neither is the media for that matter. But given his rather ridiculous birther comments/ that PR fiasco, I'd distance myself from that guy.
See, I'm not sure what to make of these special interest groups running the debates in the first place. And that's not just Trump, but also that Family group, or the Jewish council, or for that matter Rick Warren from the last election cycle. Does it give too much control to these groups (they can, for instance choose to exclude certain candidates- like the Jewish council and Ron Paul.) I just haven't thought about what the impact is (or perhaps it's minimal). Is that how it's always been? If you have enough clout, then you can host your own personal debate? It has the potential to politicize even the decision to accept an invitation to a debate. If an atheist think-tank hosted a debate for instance, or a Muslim group. You can be sure that candidates would use their decision to attend the debates (or decline as is more likely) as part of their campaign. But will that be a growing trend where attendance or non-attendance is itself part of the debate? It would seem to erode the very notion of debate. Attendance of a debate ought to be non-partisan.
I'm mostly familiar with our Canadian consortium of media networks with two leader's debates: one in English and one in French. I think in 2006, we had all of four. But it was a media consortium, not the Fraser Institute or rich Canadian moguls hosting debates.
There's nothing wrong with allowing interest groups running debates - so what if they choose to exclude certain candidates and include others? So what if they have agendas? It's a free country and people are free to be informed in whichever ways they wish. Why should news stations and universities have monopolies on where candidates put forward their messages? And what the fuck why shouldn't an atheist group be allowed to host a debate? Presidents should be challenged on their beliefs and held accountable to people who are interested to know.
At first it makes sense to have the 'freedom of speech' type argument apply to these debates, where anyone can host a debate. But then think about the kind of influence on what message gets relayed to the public from these debates, and think about the mess America is already in from special interest groups meddling with political affairs.
The influence is a good influence - the more interest groups involved, the more competition - and the less monopolies from groups such as Fox or CNN.
On December 07 2011 18:35 Velr wrote: It IS a problem when certain candidates get more media exposure than others. How someone even could or would argue otherwise is beyond me...
Guess Berlusconi basically owning most/all big TV stations also did not help him with getting elected in Italy and was perfectly "fair"... ...
You know what's the blame? General public indifference/ignorance - not the media. People simply fail to give a shit. Most people do not like to learn about politics in depth, which is why there are a fuckload of swing/centrist voters at every election, and they only have themselves to blame for their retardation.
And what the fuck why shouldn't an atheist group be allowed to host a debate?
You misunderstand me. Given that the Republicans are always trying to win the Evangelical vote, do you think there's a hope in hell any Republican candidate is going to accept a forum opportunity hosted by atheists, or for that matter a debate hosted by Muslims? These special interest groups hosting debates haven't really created a stir because the ones hosting it are typically what right wing talking heads might call "real America-" evangelicals, zionists, tea parties, rich corporates. But that's exactly what I mean by politicizing access to the debate itself. Should access to the debate be an uneven playing field, or in theory should access to the debate be even, thus providing the best venue of free speech.
I actually would have a problem with certain candidates being included or excluded based on an interest groups ideology. By controlling screen time of candidates, they can control the discourse of who is top tier and who isn't simply based on a disagreement on ideology that may be a very niche view and not representative at all of US as a whole. Partly, there's a fundamental problem of a leadership race separate from a party. Without knowing if the party backs the leader, it's seems rather subjective on who is top tier and who isn't. I've commented on this before, but no-one's really answered that question- who decides who is top tier and who isn't. Inclusion and exclusion from debates (from what I've seen) is rather arbitrary based on hype (whether real or imagined.) Special interest groups picking and choosing winners and losers seems contrary to a democratic process.
Theoretically the debate should be hosted with some modicum of neutrality (consortium of news organizations rather than one news organization) and universities theoretically are a place where many ideas and viewpoints are exchanged and so then theoretically a neutral host.
The problem is when acceptance of a hosted debate is considered a political statement. I would argue that within American politics that accepting a debate hosted by Rick Warren, Paul Kurtz, or some immam would create wildly different opinions amongst voters on simply showing up to the debate. Warren doesn't raise an eyebrow because he's an evangelical. However, I see it all as the same problem, though perceptions may vary in individual cases. For instance, I actually like Warren and don't like Trump. But they are the same issue. The debate shouldn't be over the debate itself (on whether to show up or not.)
On December 07 2011 16:51 Rodimus Prime wrote:so what if they choose to exclude certain candidates and include others? So what if they have agendas? It's a free country and people are free to be informed in whichever ways they wish.
Would you say that ignorance and political close-mindedness is a right?
Fun fact: the founding fathers were horrified when they found out that people would vote for their own interest only
On December 07 2011 16:51 Rodimus Prime wrote:so what if they choose to exclude certain candidates and include others? So what if they have agendas? It's a free country and people are free to be informed in whichever ways they wish.
Would you say that ignorance and political close-mindedness is a right?
Fun fact: the founding fathers were horrified when they found out that people would vote for their own interest only
For better or for worse, it is a right that both democrats and republicans (and their voters) exercise quite frequently.
On December 07 2011 16:51 Rodimus Prime wrote:so what if they choose to exclude certain candidates and include others? So what if they have agendas? It's a free country and people are free to be informed in whichever ways they wish.
Would you say that ignorance and political close-mindedness is a right?
Fun fact: the founding fathers were horrified when they found out that people would vote for their own interest only
For better or for worse, it is a right that both democrats and republicans (and their voters) exercise quite frequently.
That's the sad truth. People don't realize sometimes that you can vote outside the "two party" system. I tend to combined both of them and call it the corporate interest only party.
There is no question that both the Democrats and the Republicans are two branches of the same political party. On all practical matters they are in lockstep. There is no debate, only political theatre, they differ not in policy but in rhetoric. Both parties agree on a hawkish neo-conservative foreign policy which has remained unchanged since Wilson first implemented it. On the domestic sphere both parties agitate towards the complete and utter control over America's economy by the state. Economically they can be described as 'corporatists' or 'soft fascism'. The merging of state and corporate interests. It is only a matter of time before these parties turn the USA into a socialist nation.
On a similar note, Michael Moore apparently has just found out what anyone who was paying attention already knew:
MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, "The Washington post" three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all -- than all eight Republicans combined. I don't want to say that, because if that's the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we've got a much bigger problem.
But I think President Obama, if he were here in the room, the question I would ask him is why are they your number one contributors? Why are you taking this money?
MORGAN: It's fascinating to find out why they're doing it. I'll ask him.
MOORE: What are they expecting in return in the second term from you? Right now, here's what we do know. Goldman Sachs was your number one contributor the 2008 election. And we have not seen anyone from Goldman Sachs go to jail. We have not seen the regulations, Glass/Steagall, put back on to Wall Street now three years after the crash.
Why hasn't that happened? President Obama, we the people need you to take them by the throat and say, damn it, this is the United States of America; you don't steal from the working people of this country. And this is the way it's going to be.
On December 08 2011 04:42 xDaunt wrote: On a similar note, Michael Moore apparently has just found out what anyone who was paying attention already knew:
MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, "The Washington post" three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all -- than all eight Republicans combined. I don't want to say that, because if that's the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we've got a much bigger problem.
But I think President Obama, if he were here in the room, the question I would ask him is why are they your number one contributors? Why are you taking this money?
MORGAN: It's fascinating to find out why they're doing it. I'll ask him.
MOORE: What are they expecting in return in the second term from you? Right now, here's what we do know. Goldman Sachs was your number one contributor the 2008 election. And we have not seen anyone from Goldman Sachs go to jail. We have not seen the regulations, Glass/Steagall, put back on to Wall Street now three years after the crash.
Why hasn't that happened? President Obama, we the people need you to take them by the throat and say, damn it, this is the United States of America; you don't steal from the working people of this country. And this is the way it's going to be.
Per Summers, Gingrich said he would make John Bolton, a former potential candidate, his secretary of state.
This is utterly hilarious. Vote Gingrich '12.
I really like Bolton and especially how he tells other countries to fuck off when US interests are at stake, but a buddy of mine who is "in the know" says that Bolton is a major league douchebag.
EPT
