"let's be Serious"

"let's be Serious" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cjan -> "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 11:14:00 AM)
Read this piece in the op-ed page of today's NY Times. It raises, imo, the most important question in this election year. Do you think that "we the people" along with the press, can insist that the candidates address the important, even vital, issues that face the U.S. ? Or will we have just more of the smoke blowing and distractions on knee-jerk issues and more dirty tricks ? We've got too much to lose to tolerate more of the same. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20herbert.html?hp

Archer -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 11:37:30 AM)
He's right that folks will not get the campaign they need, based on real issues. But that's about where we part company, what he sees as problems I donn't see and where he sees no prblems I see real issues. Yet we do agree that politicians will go 10,000 miles out of their way to avoid giving a solid answer on an issue.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 11:54:04 AM)
While I wish I could say that I hold out some sort of "hope" for the American electoral, candidatorial, and governmental systems as a collect - I'm not in the process of blatantly lying or attemping to paint things with a rosecolored tint. Until some critical things are addressed - and Fixed - within the electoral system, the Sheeple will continue to hear nothing but the bay/bleating of bloated wolves hiding behind a masquerade mask of lamb's wool. The system worked when we had a much smaller population and considerably less technological base. Now it doesn't. Fear mongering and muckraking have become standard tactics within the professional politico's arsnal for the same reason that people slow down on the highway to gawk at grisley car wreckage. As long as the sheep continue to Respond to such tactics, they will continue to be standard issue weapons of canditorial warfare against each other. When push comes to shove, the Vast majority of folks simply aren't intelligent enough to Recognize what the Important issues are unless it's spoon fed to them along with their 6pm nightly ration of pap and drek dished up by whatever local media station happens to be their preference. Those who speak out or who are activist about real issues rather than muckslinging run the increased risk of finding themselves in federal custody as a potential "terrorist" against the government. Not to mention the fact that they're frequently painted AS the fear mongers by the feds and media! Are things going to get better? Not until we line all the existing politicians up in front of a firing squad and let the new ones go into office with that fresh in their minds. DON'T reelect incumbants or holders of previous offices, period. They're already paid off and part of the network, which means they're only in things for themselves and whatever PAC bought them. DON'T vote for someone who spends more on election advertising and campienging than they'll even Make as an Actual Salary filling the job. Cut off ALL perks that the politicians get. Refuse to reelect someone that has even ONCE voted for something that's either blatantly UNconstitutional, or only marginally constitutional. Demand that politicians who vote themselves constant pay raises - at OUR expense - be removed from office immediately, without pay, without benefits, and without recourse to getting their "job" back. Those who actively Seek power via holding government office are those who are LEAST appropriate to Wield that power, and should therefore be most actively Shunned. Balance the Budget - declare Politicians to be a No Limits Game Species!

pahunkboy -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 11:57:12 AM)
the folly is that we have trillions to spend on ANYTHING. obama takes no PAC money. but- some of these hillary supporters are nasty. win at all costs- even disrupting the nation and awaiting 2012.

celticlord2112 -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 11:58:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan Read this piece in the op-ed page of today's NY Times. It raises, imo, the most important question in this election year. Do you think that "we the people" along with the press, can insist that the candidates address the important, even vital, issues that face the U.S. ? Or will we have just more of the smoke blowing and distractions on knee-jerk issues and more dirty tricks ? We've got too much to lose to tolerate more of the same. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20herbert.html?hp Do we even agree on what those important issues are? I have noticed that politicians love to use the need to discuss "real" issues as a convenient rubric to discuss issues that are of importance to someone else. The question of "addressing the issues" seems to me to be a roundabout way of dismissing things other people hold dear.

pahunkboy -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 12:06:39 PM)
well- compliments of the electoral system, FL, OH and maybe 1 other "swing" state are the only thing that is important.

cjan -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 12:25:55 PM)
celticlord, you seem to delight in and be addicted to obfuscation yourself, dude. Maybe you should run for office. Btw, you misused "rubric" in your post. In the context you use it, it makes no sense, in case that matters to you. quote: rubric: noun a heading in a book highlighted in red an established rule or custom, a guideline a category or classification That would fall under the 'rubric' of things we can ignore for now. (Education*) a printed set of scoring criteria for evaluating student work and for giving feedback I am inclined more to agree with hizgeorgiapeach's point of view. At the very least, it is well thought out and articulated. Actually, what I am wondering is if the American electorate has even the power to demand and expect an election campaign that requires debate of substantive issues rather than the same old same old. Perhaps, sadly, hizgeorgiapeach is right and the majority of U.S. citizens are more interested in American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and who is currently fucking Paris Hilton.

Archer -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 12:31:54 PM)
Directed at the candidates not the posters in this board We can frame some real issues here, pleasse avoid spending 1.75 minutes restating the problem and only 30 seconds saying you'll work to fix the problem I would rather have a real flippin answer for the plan you have or a I really haven't decided what to do about X. Tax Policy What is you plan specificly Social Security Solvency What is your plan specificly Medicare Solvency What is your plan specificly How do you forsee handleing the problem of terrorism is it a law enforcement issue or a military issue? What is your policy for A. keeping jobs from being sent overseas and B. reversing the trend and bringing jobs back What is your plan for creating new jobs? Again specificly what you intend to do not I'm gonna work to do it, but rather here are the steps 1-10 and how they will work.

cjan -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 12:38:18 PM)
Exactly, Archer. As citizens, we have very limited, if any, opportunity to ask the candidates these kinds of questions. We , for the most part, have to rely on the press which seems to have been absent in recent, and not so recent, years. So, my question comes down to , how can we influence the press and demand that they perform their function by asking these specific, direct questions of the candidates, and hold their goddamn feet to the fire when they try to weasel out of giving a direct, specific answer?

Archer -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 12:43:02 PM)
I think the proposed joint Town Hall meetings might be a good first step actually. Non moderated lincoln douglas style debates. Or evn maybe have the heads of the smaller parties be the moderators of the debates. Libertarians get to ask their Q's and Greens get to ask theirs and they get to score the responses as disagree but honest, pandering plattitudes etc. Not that any of these except the first two are very practicle But we have to get the media out of the business of translating for us and have them stick to reporting the facts. Oh and the questions reviewed by folks who actually have a grasp of the issues rather than some reporter looking for rateings for his network. And the crap like boxers or briefs removed in favor of you have 3 minutes to express your plan to handle this issue.

popeye1250 -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 12:45:27 PM)
Decades ago we used to get questionaires from the congressman and senators asking "The People" what they thought about certain issues. I think they should bring that back. Anything that gives "The People" more of a say in govt. is in my opinion a good thing.

LadyEllen -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 12:51:57 PM)
Seems to me that the problem throughout is money. The candidates are subject to it, the media are subject to it - and he who pays the piper calls the tune. In theory the voter has the choice of supporting all this or not through selective purchasing from those paying the piper. ie dont watch that channel or buy that newspaper, and dont buy anything from those advertising on that channel or in that newspaper. In practice, the global economy means that those paying the piper may well not be paying him with funds derived from US activities. Now there's a thought - the political process of the world's superpower, bought and and paid for in Shanghai, Hong Kong, London........... E

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 1:09:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan So, my question comes down to , how can we influence the press and demand that they perform their function by asking these specific, direct questions of the candidates, and hold their goddamn feet to the fire when they try to weasel out of giving a direct, specific answer? Ellen is correct in saying that it comes down to Money. He who has the gold Makes the Rules. Hit them where it HURTS - in the pocketbook. How do you do that? By boycotting their SPONCERS, m'dear! Sponcer Ad Space is what pays the bills of producing the various shows, whether they be political talk shows or inane staged "reality" drek, or pure escapism sitcoms meant to feed the feel good about themselves buttons on the masses. If people Collectively boycotted and refused to buy products from the companies sponcering the side show farce that is political "debate" - the sponcers would start feeling it, and they would demand changes at the press level - which would in turn force the media companies to actually Make said changes rather than mouthing platitudes themselves about "we're working on that issue" in order to save their OWN financial asses. The hold up to this, which Ellen did NOT point out, is that it HAS to be a COLLECTIVE effort. One person doing so - or even 100 - makes very little impact. 1,000,00 makes quite an impact, and then entirity of the voting eligible public would actually see some Changes made. But how 'bout YOU try to get Joe Smoe the Neighborhood Redneck to give up his Coors/Budweiser, his fast food, and his Laz-e-Boy to actually take a Stand on something! I've tried, and it was about as effective as a pregnant woman attepmting a pole vault.

LadyEllen -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 1:17:39 PM)
My point Peach, was that actually it wouldnt make a blind bit of difference - the money would simply come from markets outside the US, if there were a 100% boycott. Because its a very effective investment, so it would seem, to finance the campaigns - if Mr Tata of India wants his $3000-00 car on US roads (banned on safety grounds I believe), Mr Tata need only back the winning horse to make it happen. E

Archer -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 1:21:52 PM)
They take stands all the time when they see a threat to something they hold dear. the problem is that the press and pundents on both sides play the voters like fiddles. Clinton's sliping at the poles with foreign policy quick toss in a jab at the military industrial complex that should shore her up a bit. McCain is slipping on immigration quick toss out the islamic terrorist boogymen that'll shore him up. and the real issues never get discussed they are far too busy poking holes in their opponent's plan than to actually adjust and show their plan which is as full of holes. Funny that sounds like us right here on this board sometimes.

Archer -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 1:26:01 PM)
Ellen accepting money from foreign interests is forbidden (and usually very well hidden) So Mr India would have to filter the support through voters of Indian decent already in the US, or some other permitted PAC. So they would have to first pass election laws allowing contributions to come from interests outside the US, or hide them in legitimate donations.

LadyEllen -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 1:35:24 PM)
Given whats at stake, and the amounts involved Archer - I really dont think thats a problem. But that is an extreme example I gave; US corporations are multi-nationals - many make a lot of money here for instance and even if US consumers boycotted them, they'd be fine to put monies earned here, elsewhere in Europe and in the whole world into the campaign nevertheless. And I'd bet now that Mr Tata has quite a few companies in the US. E

MusicalBoredom -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 1:40:05 PM)
I agree with what most have said in that we need an election based on issues and not rhetoric (I think I said that in a post before). I also think that the problem isn't all in the candidates' court. The major problem is us. Getting elected is a sales job. Even if you have perfect ideals, you do what you have to do in order to get elected so that can can persue your ideals. Most of the time, people elect oficals based on some garbage reason so the candidates go for sound bites that get talked about around the water cooler. The PR and advertising firms then advise the candidtates on what needs to happen in order for them to be elected -- the do what we want them to do in order to get elected.

cjan -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 2:06:23 PM)
The idea of boycotting sponsors seems like a good one, but then there is the issue, as peach pointed out, of getting Joe Schmoe to care enough. I'm not aware of any such boycott that has worked, with the exception of organized groups (NAACP and such) boycotting Miami a few years ago and of highly organized religious right groups doing the same in verious circumstances. Also, major broadcast media have always considered news programs to be financial losers and have presenred what little they have ( and it's been getting much worse ) because the FCC demands it of them. Other major media have been in recent years absorbed by a more concentrated ownership, such as Rupert Murdoch and others, all of whom make their money otherwise and use the media they own to promote their own agendas. Yes, of course, money talks and those that have it and spend it to elect politicians call the tune. Basic election finance reform is fundamental and needed before anu real change will happen. However, given that profit is of minor concern to news media outlets and in the absence of election finance reform, what can WE do to insist on substantive debate on issues ? That's what frustrates me and makes me wonder how pwerless we, as citizens have really become. The town meeting format is an excellent idea, but I wonder how many of them are orchestrated. From news reports, it's clear that many of them have been. I agree that what is needed is a grass roots effort by concerned citizens ( and we all should be concerned ) to put pressure on media and candidates to address the issues. That, it seems, may be impossible given what most U.S. citizens priorities seem to be. In the end,sadly, I fear that "we" will get the government we deserve once again.

pahunkboy -> RE: "let's be Serious" (5/20/2008 2:07:00 PM)
boycotting whom? companies own eachother merge divest restructure - the subsidiery ad nauseuan. we as humanity hit a pinacle of dumb herd of head. http://consumerist.com/5009766/how-robots-are-killing-customer-service <-- the political process is morphing with business practices. worse yet- is that we as a people accept and feed this beast.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875