the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Dmitri wrote:

windwalker wrote:not just third parties

sure, but I was hoping to talk specifically about third parties... Clinton and Trump are talked about enough everywhere else.

fixed

Dmitri wrote:

grzegorz wrote:that is the Constitution which is essentially to blame not the media

Constitution?

There is no room for second place in elections. So why would the media cover candidates who don't have a shot?

The candidates only "have a shot" because of the media covering them. The mass media is absolutely crucial in what choices are (continuously) presented to the public.

And AFAIK the constitution doesn't say anything whatsoever about democrats, republicans, or the number of parties that is to be involved.

I don't have a perfect solution, but here's a crazy idea -- how about some sort of a contest, a la "American Idol"? A variety of tests on a wide spectrum of topics, etc. Ban all ads, campaigning, etc. by the candidates. That has got to be significantly better than what we have now.


In the meantime, I'm hoping Wikileaks will release something that would unequivocally paint Hillary a criminal and disqualify her from running, and we'll have Bernie as president.
I know, I know, wishful thinking...

The media is a business. Ever heard it bleeds it leads?

Yes, I don't disagree but in the real world who is going to care about Jill Stein and Gary Johnson except for political junkies like us? By the way CNN gave them a platform and hosted a debate for them.

But the fact is FOX has the largest amount of viewers because they don't do that instead they have talking points which they all repeat. New knowledge is not the Fox formula.

I don't blame the media if we had a parliamentary system things would be different but we don't and it's not going to happen any time soon.

Of course is someone dislikes the media they can always become part of the media and change it from within.

I agree the US media is an embarrassment but I don't believe there is conspiracy as much as it is all about money. Does it get more American?

By the way CNN gave them a platform and hosted a debate for them.

Who watched, though? Rhetorical question.

"Platform"? I hope you're not seriously comparing (all the underhanded BS sampled in the OP aside) the amount of coverage they give to the two main parties with what they through to the rest of the parties.

Dmitri, do you think the nazi party should get equal time on the air, just because it's a party, or because of the number of members, or because they have a different set of ideas?

When the numbers are high enough, the candidate will get attention. Imo, the argument here is that because all points of view need to have their own party. That's a fallacy. Ron Paul tried to get the Republican nomination because his views aligned most closely with theirs. Otoh, Nader appealed more to Democrats.

People can elect whoever they want, especially at the local level. What happens is that people don't know all the candidates on a ticket; they just vote the row, except maybe for presidential races. In fact, many don't vote at all in the primaries and elections on the off-years. You're right that the Constitution doesn't limit the number of parties, only the number of representatives and senators.

So, strategically, it would be much easier to enter and influence the Democratic party than to form a new party. The state of the Republican party today is an illustration.

Exactly. Years ago you could not give away tickets for the Golden State Warriors but no wanted to see them and now?!?

Steve James wrote:do you think the nazi party should get equal time on the air, just because it's a party, or because of the number of members, or because they have a different set of ideas?

I see your point, but that is not a very fair, or very relevant, comparison.

Besides, I'm not talking about parties but about candidates, i.e. people. E.g. there are plenty of (self-proclaimed at least) Christians who manifest very little, if any at all, of that religion's values in what they say or do -- and that gap is much greater when it comes to political views/parties. It's always about the person; we're not electing a "party" to be the president.

So yeah, if someone was running from a nazi party, I'd want him or her on that hypothetical reality show I was suggesting above, having equal exposure and answering the same questions and taking the same tests. They'd be voted out of it very early on, I guarantee you.

the argument here is that because all points of view need to have their own party.

Not sure I follow...

Ron Paul tried to get the Republican nomination because his views aligned most closely with theirs.

Nope, he tried it after he realized that he'd get a LOT more media exposure running as a Republican compared to Libertarian -- and he surely did get it (although he and some of his supporters have been "accidentally disconnected" and censored a number of times). He did run as a Libertarian in 1988 as you might know, and of course that didn't go any better than just about any other "third-party" run. IT just doesn't matter who you are.

If Obama was running as an independent, what do you think would have happened? (Rhetorical question.)

So, strategically, it would be much easier to enter and influence the Democratic party than to form a new party.

Of course; I'm not suggesting we need more parties. We need a more equal representation of all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation.

Of course; I'm not suggesting we need more parties. We need a more equal representation of all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation.

But, your point was that some candidates (i.e., people who want to be elected) get more media exposure than others. True. But, does that mean that everyone who wants to be president or even a candidate should get as much media exposure as all others? Suppose I decided to run; does CBS have to give me equal time? The Republicans had 18 candidates for the nomination. None got as much air play as Trump; but, it had nothing to do with the parties.

I like Jill Stein

Ron Paul tried to get the Republican nomination because his views aligned most closely with theirs.

Nope, he tried it after he realized that he'd get a LOT more media exposure running as a Republican compared to Libertarian -- and he surely did get it (although he and some of his supporters have been "accidentally disconnected" and censored a number of times). He did run as a Libertarian in 1988 as you might know, and of course that didn't go any better than just about any other "third-party" run.

I'm keeping my Ron Paul bumper sticker on my vehicle:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/19/after-all-these-years-ron-paul-has-finally-won-an-electoral-vote/

3rd parties for the people sounds good but because they have no vested interests (as in corporations (affiliation) Congress, etc) they are useless and due to no funding of any kind they fall by the wayside and rot.

"Third-party choices aggressively suppressed by mass media"

Odd how when its happening, it's not seen.

Team “trump” is probably the closest the US will get to having elected a 3rd party.
As was mentioned, many 3rd parties have no “vested” interest for the greater whole beyond their own self interest.

Some have talked about the media support and lack of as a reason for why some parties or people get elected.
This is changing. The US has yet to see and understand this. Slowly it's starting to, more attention is being
paid to how, or what to do about it.

The old media, is in its last days of being relative as shown by the current election.
The new media if it can survive the attempts at censorship and false narrative of “fake news” by the
“Real news old media” will be the dominant way most people get their news...