Super Tuesday

[Texico]

Ah, but you see, I said "we, as a country..." and the media is part of the country. If people truly wanted the extra choices then they wouldn't have argued for the mediea to give those other candidates air time. The people did not do this, and the lack of a voice from the people shows that they did not want those other candidates enough to care about keeping them, so the media decided to get rid of them for the people. The people want sensationalism, and that's what the media gave them in Barack and Hillary.

We agree on the main point, though. I just wanted to clarify what I meant by that one statement.

[raytrace]

So here it is, the hype has hit a peek, it is Super Tuesday. I feel like a beaten dog. I am writing this early in the day, so I have no idea how this day will end. The polls have not even opened in NY yet. I want to scream at the sky! I feel that no one in the nation is thinking about what this all means, but that is no new feeling. But I just found out that not only is George Soros supporting Hilary Clinton, but he is also supporting John McCain. I was thinking that if it comes down to those two, well at least I can vote to help defeat Clinton. (I am one that really does not like her, but that is just my feeling.) But if they are each in the same guy's pocket, we will get the same shit, even if we are against it. I hope by some miracle, that we can defeat someone sponsored by someone that is so evil. If we can get anyone that is not in that man's pocket I will be a happy man. If not, I feel that the USA that I know is doomed. I know that the USA is not perfect. I understand that we have great big problems. But I also feel that this is the greatest place to live. I would hate to see it go against the people. (More that it already is) I am looking for a 'new great hope' but I feel that there is not one left. So everyone go vote, and what ever the outcome, maybe we can try to reclaim what this country once stood for.

Sad to say we can soon change our world maps to read U.S.S.A (United Socialist States of America) instead of U.S.A..

These guys from Link hit the nail on right on the head.

[jayson]

Ah, but you see, I said "we, as a country..." and the media is part of the country. If people truly wanted the extra choices then they wouldn't have argued for the mediea to give those other candidates air time. The people did not do this, and the lack of a voice from the people shows that they did not want those other candidates enough to care about keeping them, so the media decided to get rid of them for the people. The people want sensationalism, and that's what the media gave them in Barack and Hillary

You do make a good point. The people want politics to be as exciting as everything else. They have gotten what they wanted, sadly at the cost of electoral sanity, where a pretty face and a good voice gets a candidate farther than principle.

[Bulldog_916]

People voted on principal when they voted for Bush again and now they're eating their voting card for lunch. Obama is the next JFK type president. I'm sick of experienced politicians because that's all they know, how to make false promises and fuck the American people over. I dont feel that with Obama. I feel it with Hillary and McCain. I dont wanna hear excuses, I wanna hear solutions!!!

[St. Goodypants]

The media is owned by a very select portion of the populace, so it DOES NOT represent an adequate cross section of the american people. I agree that the american people are NOW sheep. They are kept that way BY the sensationalism in the media, and through the media that very small selection of the populace.

Going back to the start, the primary candidates from the same parties are considered the only ones worth voting for. How do they get to be there? By agreeing at least partially with what is expected out of that particular political party.

Different candidates with similar ideas about how to run the country aren't going to make a huge difference in how the country is run.

[Texico]

lol, I'm sorry but the people do have the power (and I wasn't talking about who OWNED the media). It's that way with pretty much everything. If the people of this country truly wanted the media to change its ways then they would be able to do so. The fact that they haven't proves that they don't care enough to force the change. The media caters to what the people want, and I mean the average person and not you or any of the rest of us for that matter. The media discovered that sensationalism sells. It's been that way for centuries.

All of the candidates before the primaries did have only slightly different views in regards to their party line, but now that the democrats are stuck with Barack and Hillary they've lost their best candidate, John Edwards. John Edwards was at least a moderate democrat and not a hardcore liberal like Barack and Hillary. Although, I guess I can't really call Barack a hardcore liberal because he has yet to voice an opinion on some things like socialized healthcare.

I don't think that any president is going to change how this country is run. The office of the Presidency does not have as much power as many people assume, and I think Barack is promising WAY more than he would be able to deliver once in office. The true power of the government lies with the legislative branch.

I think the main problem is that the law which grants the President the power to go to essentially go to war with another country for 60 days (I'm not 100% sure of the time limit) as long as he has withdrawn troops at the end of the time period or has gained a declaration of war from congress is unconstitutional. As long as this law exists congress will be forced to declare war if we are not victorious within the time allotted.

Oh yeah, the American people have ALWAYS been sheep. It's not a new phenomenon.

[St. Goodypants]

Yes, the people have the power, BUT the media controls what information the people get. Whoever OWNS the major media outlets CONTROLS what those outlets report. And I disagree completely on your statement on the public controlling the media. I think that we are so apathetic as a populace because the only things that we see either make us feel powerless or keep us entertained, thus the media has control over us. If you want to talk about the history of the media controlling the populace,
 you can look into Yellow Journalism and the Spanish American War.

I'm also not arguing that none of the candidates we have are valid, but that having 2 political parties which mostly agree with themselves and disagree with each other does not cover a wide enough range of political viewpoints.

Ever since FDR the president has had far more social impact than political inside of the US. That still does not change the fact that it is the most powerful single office in the government.

Oh yeah, the American people HAVE NOT always been a flock of sheep. That started around the advent of large-scale radio broadcasting. Edited February 13, 2008 by St. Goodypants

[Texico]

I'm not sure why you brought up Yellow Journalism and the Spanish-American War. I'm going to assume you wikipidia'd them (altough I could be wrong) because on the wikipidia page they're right next to each other. Info from wikipidia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and a research paper from Humboldt University (not the best of sources, but all of the info is cited) actually support my case that the media panders to the public. All three state that yellow journalism was used as a method to increase circulation of the papers. They used it because it's what the people wanted to read about. It's not that the media forced it on the people, the people forced the media to do so in order to make more money.

The people have enough sources to find information for themselves. It's a thing called the internet (and it's part of the "media"). I know, most people apparently aren't smart enough to use it, or they don't want to take the time to sift through the nearly endless information, but that just means that they don't care enough to know the information. That's all I'm really saying. If people wanted to know about things which the broadcast media omits then they could find it for themselves. There's a reason I stopped watching TV news years ago, but maybe we're some of the enlightened few?

As to the presidency being the most powerful office in the government, of course. I was never arguing against that. The President is much more powerful than a Senator or Representative. However, the combined Congress has more power than the president.

I would argue that the American people first became sheep when Common Sense was printed right before the revolution. That's a good kind of sheep, though, so I guess I should be flogged for implying that the educated men of the Continental Congress were using print media to influence the colonies to go to war... Edited February 13, 2008 by Texico

[Bulldog_916]

Well, Obama wasnt a favorite when this shit began. They all thought it was going to be Hillary and Edwards. Everyone was saying "He isnt experienced enough, we can basically write him off." But apparently the people found a voice in the Bama-nator or he wouldnt even be an afterthought in this race.

[St. Goodypants]

First off, I'm tired of this debate. It's just pissing me off, and not changing either of our opinions. I think that the yellow journalism was what influenced the start of the war by driving the popular majority to support it. I agree that it was sensationalism used to increase circulation of the papers, but I was using it to illustrate the fact that the media affects public opinion in an immense way. And no I did not "just wiki it", I have had a large interest in the reasons why we have gone to war historically for a long time. The Spanish-American war stood out particularly in my mind.

My original point was that the 2 party system is not effective. Edited February 13, 2008 by St. Goodypants

[Texico]

If you tire of this debate, then I will not post against you again. I actually enjoy these, though, as they give me a chance to learn others' opinions and research more information, and, yes, sometimes I do change my position.

I agree that the two party system is ineffective. That's the way it's always been, though, ever since the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. I just don't see it changing any time soon. The party names change, but the beliefs stay the same (in general). At least, that's the way I remember it.

[St. Goodypants]

It gets progressively harder to maintain one's ideas when one is becoming progressively more intoxicated as the debate goes on.



I'd drink to that...

[jayson]

My original point was that the 2 party system is not effective.

To that I disagree. Not to get into someone else's fight, but you cannot deny that a two party system breeds stability. So, if your interests happen to lie in the health of a nation, you would hope that you would have a two-party system, because in a perfect situation at any given moment, at LEAST 51% of the people are happy.

Just look at some Eastern European countries who have 20 or 30 parties on the ballots. You end up with 10% of the population pleased as punch and the other 90% pissed off.

That being said, I do not support the current setup because the parties have drifted and no longer represent the people they claim to represent. This, inherently, wouldn't be an issue in and of itself, however it IS an issue when the voting public goes to the polls largely uneducated and end up either checking all boxes with R or D.

[St. Goodypants]

Stability isn't the problem, it's that drifting that you were talking about, and the amount of power special interests gain by having money in a candidate or party.

Maybe there needs to be a completely different system. Perhaps eliminating the parties and relying on the candidates to get their own beliefs out.

I realize that this introduces it's own set of problems, but at least the people have more say in what viewpoint they're voting for. Edited February 14, 2008 by St. Goodypants