Slashdot Mirror
FCC Complaints For the 2016 Primary Debates (muckrock.com)
v3rgEz writes: Wish that you could have tuned into all the primary debates without a cable subscription? You're not alone. According to MuckRock analysis of primary-related FCC complaints, that was one of the most common complaints, as well as allegations of corporate bias, candidate preferences by the networks, and general gripes about how corporate supposedly open debates have become. I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
In America?
I'm shocked.
Hint: the candidates themselves are bought and sold on the marketplace. They're rich fucks trying to get elected to better serve their corporate masters, who bankrolled their campaigns. What does it matter if their lies and their antics are broadcast on Fox or PBS?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
The problem with the primary system is that it matters so much. It wouldn't if there were more than 2 parties (and thus 2 candidates) that counted.
To fix this we need to fix the US election system. Here's why that matters.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
The FCC is just as politically tainted as the Department of Justice, EPA, IRS, BLM, DHS, HHS, HUD, SSA, VA and the rest of Obama's diseased agencies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Their man Obama benefited from the same corrupt media treatment in the last 2 elections. He still does.
I have internet access but no TV. I tried watching the debates live on YouTube, and have only sometimes been successful. I wonder why CNN or FNC or the other channels don't either stream LIVE (for NON-cable subscribers) or allow live streaming feeds on YouTube.
Content wise, they're being paid for it either way - whether I watch it on TV or on Internet, the channel is still getting paid. Even the carriers - Charter in my case - are being paid regardless of whether I watch it over TV or over the internet. I just don't see the arguments from the Carrier POV of forcing people to get a cable connection to view content that can also be available online.
At this stage of the game, the internal dealings of a political party isn't any different than the internal dealings of the local bowling club. People are free to assemble and do what they want on their own terms. If that happens to include choosing CNN to host their debate, so what? That's no different than a club renting out a church basement or local legion hall for their monthly meeting. A political party is a private association of people who are, among themselves, deciding who they might want to put forward as a candidate in a general election.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'd really like to see debates run not by the 6 largest media companies.. They have a vested interest in keeping money *in* politics (because they get a lot of it!)
Is it my fault if I believe the rest of the world is populated by bare-breasted women because I've only ever watched the national geographic channel?
FTFY
Is it my fault if I believe the rest of the world is populated by savages because I've only ever watched the national geographic channel?
I would just like to point out the hilarity of you bringing this up without asserting that NatGeo misrepresented the 'savages'. Thank you for supporting my point. ;)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
What is sadder is that you wasted your time responding to an obvious troll, that put very little effort into his or her post. Don't feed the trolls and they will crawl back under bridge from which they spawned.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Have gnu, will travel.
If there is one thing that seems pretty clear it's that Sanders and Trump are both hated by the elite of their party and the sleeping giant of "None of the above" voters are starting to notice and believe they might be viable ways to strike back at them.
Only half true. The sleeping giant of "white people without a college degree" (and a bunch who do) are indeed waking up and voting for Trump in the primaries. It looks very much like Trump will win the GOP nomination.
However, on the Democratic side, it appears this isn't the case. While the Bernie supporters are putting up a good fight, it just isn't enough: outside of states that already aspire to be like Denmark and don't have any black people, the Democratic voters are voting for Hillary in droves, and apparently minorities are really leading the way here. It's great that roughly 1/3 of them are voting for Bernie, but that doesn't help when the other 2/3 are voting for Mrs. Goldman-Sachs. For some strange reason, the minorities (particularly blacks) are turning their backs on the guy who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (in the "March on Washington" where King delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech) and instead voting for the woman who called young African-American men "super-predators" and helped push legislation that has destroyed black families. It's mind-boggling.
As best as I can tell, what we're seeing here is the dumb older generations of Democratic voters screwing over the younger generations because they're gullible enough to believe Hillary's lies and desperately want to see a female--any female--in the White House before they're dead, even if she's a blatantly corrupt, ultra-wealthy war hawk who'll sign disastrous trade deals like the TPP and further push policies to spy on Americans with the NSA, and most likely start yet another war in the middle east, destabilizing the area even more, increasing the power of ISIS/Boko Haram, and resulting in the deaths of millions.
Based on all this, Trump actually looks like the rational choice in November. At least he called Bush's Iraq war "stupid", unlike Hillary who voted for it.
The real problem that the Democrat and Republican parties are facing is that they each have an outsider candidate, who is not part of their party but just "running as" a member, who is either blowing everyone else out (Trump) or putting up a much more substantial fight than expected (Sanders). If the election actually came down to Sanders versus Trump there would be a lot of democrats and republicans looking around feeling like they don't have a candidate in the election, and rightly so. That's the conclusion to the Democrat policy of "more Obama" and the Republican policy of "stop Obama". It's not all about Obama, and plenty of people want to move in a completely different direction than where either party wants to go. You can still see it with the Republican-majority Congress vowing to just stonewall any attempt by the president to do his job and nominate a new SC justice. Congress is there to do a job that they are just outright refusing to do because the other guy is Obama, and it seems stupid to a lot of people. Or the dozens of times that republicans have tried to repeal or cripple Obamacare, knowing full well that Obama will veto any attempt. They know that they are wasting their time, and they do it anyway instead of actually getting anything done. The people watching that happen are the kinds of people who are voting for Trump or Sanders.
At this point it's not unthinkable that Trump fails to secure the majority he needs to be the nominee, it goes to the brokered convention, the convention votes to nominate a different person, Trump breaks off as an independent and takes 40% or whatever of Republican voters with him, the Democrats anoint Hillary, Sanders says F this and signs on as an independent, and then Bloomberg jumps in for good measure to stir the pot a little more. A general election with 5 major candidates, in addition to people like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, might be what we need at this point. The two-party bickering has reached a level that is no longer sustainable, and that's why Sanders and Trump are where they are.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You are confusing the primaries with the actual election. In most states people who are not registered as democrats aren't allowed to vote in their primaries. Polling among the general population of registered voters shows Bernie as being the most favored candidate across the board by a wide margin at 60% and solidly beating all Republican candidates on a head to head election basis by a solid margin. Hillary only beats Trump and only by 3% and loses to all other candidates.
The primaries are far from over. Obama was losing after super tuesday as well. It would help if he announced Warren as his running mate. Sanders is a very old man, his VP has a good chance of becoming President, especially if he went a second term.
I'm not confusing the primaries with the actual election. That's great that some polls show Bernie as being favorable to a wide swath of American voters, but the problem is that our shitty Presidential election system isn't designed to capture the desires of mainstream voters, it's rigged to perpetuate a corrupt, two-party system and keep people like Bernie out. Bernie has to win the Democratic primaries in order to go to the general election, so people registered as Democrats need to vote for him to make that happen. If they don't, then he's out, or he has to run as an independent which is unlikely (I'm pretty sure he said he wouldn't do that). If there's one thing I don't like about Bernie, it's that he's much too soft on Hillary (as Ralph Nader noted in his blog). Maybe he'll change his mind; it'd be interesting to see a 3-way race between Hillary, Trump, and Bernie.
Bernie is old, but he's not that much older than Hillary or Trump. Bernie is 74, Trump is 69, and Hillary is 68. There's a 6-year difference between Bernie and Hillary. The age thing is a canard that anti-Bernie people are using to attack him. Maybe if you're a Cruz or Rubio supporter it's a somewhat valid charge, but if you're a Hillary shill, then no, it's not valid at all. Hillary has had a bunch of health problems and is likely to keel over sooner than Bernie.
However, I do thank you for pointing out that Obama was also losing after Super Tuesday, that's a very good point.