Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:17 pm

Nooska wrote:Campaign Finance Reform.

Make all campaigns have a max amount to spend on it, have it be provided by the state, and have set amounts of television and radio time, so each candidate has exactly the same amount as his or her opponent, so its the politics that matter, not the money. (Would also go a long way towards removing negative adds - do you REALLY want to spend x% of your alloted time smearing your opponent, when (s)he can just keep talking politics leaving you less time to get your message out?)

Yeah, I know, it will neve rhappen (it wouldn't even in our nice socialistic scandinavian "paradises")


"Hi, I'm Billy Joe Bob from the Billy Joe Bob party. I collected me some 25,000 signatures while on unemployment so I could start my own political party. Now give me my 10 million for campaign advertising so I can spend it at Billy Joe Bob's Video Productions Inc. to make my campaign commercial."

"Hi, I'm Willard Thornton III. I invested $1 million of my own money to hire people to collect signatures so I could establish my own political party. Please give me my $10 million for campaign expenses. I happen to know an artist who will design my campaign artwork for a mere $10 million. His name is Willard Thornton IV."

Nooska wrote:Well could just ban political adds from tv/radio apart from those the candidates can get to (It works, we have 0 political adds in Denmark, they are all banned, but I think it would be okay to open up for candidate adds (US system) or party adds (european systems) as long as each candidate/party was given equal amount of access/time)


Would you cancel Fox News?
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:39 am

I have no knowledge of Fox News to say either way (though the comments lead me to say "yes"), though I wouldn't ban political commentary, just political adds (it works around here, but our 2 real stations (apart from the ones that just broadcat series and movies) are both partially and exclusively (respectively) publicly funded, so they go out of their way to avoid bias.

And yes, if you get the needed signature, you should have equal airtime - why should Willard Thornton III be a bigger presence than Billy Joe Bob? both have the same public support behind running for office, that is, after all, the point of requiring signatures, is it not?
Now, for actual money, I think it needs to be divvied up into airtime (TV and radio) which is given by the networks equally, and paid for directly by the state, and then an amount for other campaign paraphanelia - around here that would be posters etc.

If you have a candidate who cooks well and wants to personally entice people by serving food, go for it, thats still limited by the candidate's time and being only 1 place at a time, as well as actually being a person of that inkling (I have a hard time seeing someone like Francis Underwood doing something like that personally - just to grab a fictional politician).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:46 am

I know its a cracked article, but still
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-po ... or-people/
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11008
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:59 am

I really want to highlight this bit:

See, it's not about intelligence, it's about trying. Politicians can't get past the idea that the only possible way to fail in America is if you sit back and do nothing. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable to them.
Paxen
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:54 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... lp00000003
Walker, a first-term Republican facing re-election next year, said he would offset the tax cuts and spending increases contained in his 2013-2015 budget by redirecting some funds away from public schools and healthcare, freezing aid to local governments and selling off state assets such as power plants.

Fuck you Walker
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11008
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:01 pm

Nooska wrote:I have no knowledge of Fox News to say either way (though the comments lead me to say "yes"), though I wouldn't ban political commentary, just political adds (it works around here, but our 2 real stations (apart from the ones that just broadcat series and movies) are both partially and exclusively (respectively) publicly funded, so they go out of their way to avoid bias.

And yes, if you get the needed signature, you should have equal airtime - why should Willard Thornton III be a bigger presence than Billy Joe Bob? both have the same public support behind running for office, that is, after all, the point of requiring signatures, is it not?
Now, for actual money, I think it needs to be divvied up into airtime (TV and radio) which is given by the networks equally, and paid for directly by the state, and then an amount for other campaign paraphanelia - around here that would be posters etc.

If you have a candidate who cooks well and wants to personally entice people by serving food, go for it, thats still limited by the candidate's time and being only 1 place at a time, as well as actually being a person of that inkling (I have a hard time seeing someone like Francis Underwood doing something like that personally - just to grab a fictional politician).


Fox is a major TV network - the one that originally broadcast "The Simpsons" and "Firefly" - that tends to openly favour one political party over the other. It is not uncommon to see "spelling mistakes" like "Barack Osama" among other less-subtle jibes. Their editorial content pretty much mirrors Republican doctrine. You could, without much stretch of the truth, call their news programs commercials for the Republican party.

The point I was making about Billy Joe Bob and Mr. Thornton III is that abuse of public campaign funding could be rampant. Theoretically you can't limit it to only two political parties, but only those two have a chance in hell of reaching the White House. But other "parties" could demand equal funding to compete. Some can be made up just to cash in on the advertising funds, Like Billy and T3. Billy sucks $10 million from the public kitty and pays it to his own video company, while Mr T3 spends his own money to get a 1000% return that he launders through his son.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:03 pm

Paxen wrote:I really want to highlight this bit:

See, it's not about intelligence, it's about trying. Politicians can't get past the idea that the only possible way to fail in America is if you sit back and do nothing. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable to them.



Then there's point #1.

“I have to tell you, I live paycheck to paycheck, like most Americans”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthru ... check.html

Even tho, as the cracked article says, she makes 3 and a half times more than the avg american household.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11008
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:53 pm

Koatanga wrote:Fox is a major TV network - the one that originally broadcast "The Simpsons" and "Firefly" - that tends to openly favour one political party over the other.


Do you not think other media outlets have their own biases that openly favour one political party over the other?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:04 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:
Koatanga wrote:Fox is a major TV network - the one that originally broadcast "The Simpsons" and "Firefly" - that tends to openly favour one political party over the other.


Do you not think other media outlets have their own biases that openly favour one political party over the other?

Not nearly to the same degree. I think the closest I've heard of is MSNBC being the "counter" to Fox. Though I can't confirm that it's quite as biased, as I generally get my news from cnn/bbc.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3918
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:28 am

fuzzygeek wrote:Do you not think other media outlets have their own biases that openly favour one political party over the other?


Nothing like Fox does (well, except maybe MSNBC). Media do have their bias, but even though journalists may be left-leaning owners are even more often right-leaning. And only a minority of media starts with party loyalties and then use that to set their policies, mostly media that is outright owned by the party in question. The more normal state of affairs is for the newspaper or TV channel to have a set of institutional ethics and then support the parties who line up with that.

Fox isn't really anything new, but they are undeniably an arm of the Republican party.
Paxen
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:33 am

fuzzygeek wrote:
Koatanga wrote:Fox is a major TV network - the one that originally broadcast "The Simpsons" and "Firefly" - that tends to openly favour one political party over the other.


Do you not think other media outlets have their own biases that openly favour one political party over the other?

Absence of bias is impossible, but many news outlets at least try to balance things, making distinct separation between "hard news" and "editorial content". Fox News is unabashedly Republican with only a token few voices of opposition thrown in for excitement. They blur the line between news and editorial to the extent that it's not visible.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:17 am

Koatanga wrote:The point I was making about Billy Joe Bob and Mr. Thornton III is that abuse of public campaign funding could be rampant. Theoretically you can't limit it to only two political parties, but only those two have a chance in hell of reaching the White House. But other "parties" could demand equal funding to compete. Some can be made up just to cash in on the advertising funds, Like Billy and T3. Billy sucks $10 million from the public kitty and pays it to his own video company, while Mr T3 spends his own money to get a 1000% return that he launders through his son.


Well it wouldn't be abuse if they can get the signatories to actually run, and no, it shouldn't be limited to 2 parties (thats no better than limiting it to 1 party from a democratic standpoint). The abuse wouldn't be rampant due to f.ex. airtime being limited and not being paid for by the candidate/campaign, but allotted by the networks themselves (would of course need some sort of oversight so the networks couldn't favor one candidate with no recourse) and payed by the "[Federal/State] Election Fund" directly.
Also, its quite easy to put in safeguards in regards to the thought of examples; namely that you cannot use the campaign materials part of the "grant" to benefit relatives (et al)and that you cannot use newly created companies (for lack of a better descriptor), and that you have to provide bills that show you payed fair market value. Also it would be easy to simply not dole out all teh grant at once, but have it like an account you could tap in to by providing a bill - if every candidate would have to do it that way the actors of the market for campaign materials, would have a federal/state guarantee for their money, so no reason to not simply bill and send it off for payment.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:13 am

Huh. I figured that Faux News was a running joke the world over.

Fair and Balanced.
We report, you decide.

are their slogans, and it's anything but. One of the their on air personalities actually RUNS a billion dollar Super PAC Republican Party Advertising conglomerate. When MIttens lost in November, his on air melt down was HISTORIC

http://americablog.com/2012/11/must-wat ... n-fox.html

The biggest theory, is that Fox uses Fox news to attone for some of the terrible things that they do. Personally, I think they realized that sensationalism, and conservatism have a big enough following in the US that they have canned it, put it on the news, and developed a rampant, cult following. If you know someone who "likes" Fox News, they will defend the channel with a fervor. It's weird.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:55 am

Fascinating. The talk of finance reform and random hyperventilating reminded me of an article I read a number of years ago breaking down journalist campaign donations by party. Spoiler: they all trend towards one spectrum -- even those at Fox, oddly enough -- although I'm sure some people will just argue it's because the evil folks at Fox are just better at being sneaky bastards.

It's interesting how some people are so passionate about Fox and don't understand how other people can feel the mirror image about other news outlets, just because the station says things they agree with. Idealogues are interesting, if not particularly productive to have conversations with.

And only a minority of media starts with party loyalties and then use that to set their policies, mostly media that is outright owned by the party in question. The more normal state of affairs is for the newspaper or TV channel to have a set of institutional ethics and then support the parties who line up with that.


Fox is outright owned by the party in question? MSNBC is outright owned by the party in question? CNN? NBC? NYT? Can Fox's behaviour be explained by adhering to their set of institutional ethics? Can MSNBCs? NYT? How about Huffpo? Should a rational person view anything sourced by X with as much skepticism as something sourced by Fox?
Last edited by fuzzygeek on Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:59 am

There's a difference between clear partisan bias, and bias combined with misrepresentation, sensationalism, etc.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6798
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest