Saying no to $80 million of public funding for election.
4 months ago
8 Comments
Obama said no to $80 million of public funding for election. Will McCain follow suit?
Tags: grupthink, mccain, news, obama, philosophy, society
1. |
 |
||
 |
Add a new answer! |
Page 1 of 1
Topic Details
This topic was started by Eraneo on June 19th, 2008. 2 grupies have voted on one or more of the 1 answers.
Comments |
Leave a comment
Lets ask the Electoral College. Why even ask us?
Just a thought that occurred. I'll check out the news on this subject with the pretense that my vote decides the presidency. If you vote this comment down you will have five years of bad luck which will involve eating at a "Chili's" restaurant.
If the electoral college is not driven by our votes, then why do candidates of both parties spend hundreds of millions with campaign ads that are obviously targeting mainstream voters?
That is a good question!
MDAdams: Do you find it suspicious that Barack Obama has become one of the most famous people on the planet in six months? That does NOT have to happen if the media does not want it to.
Do you think he became that famous out of his own efforts?
Let's see; he was a serious african american contender for president who clashed with Hillary Clinton in the aftermath of one of our worse presidents in recent memory. Why wouldn't the media report on that? That's good ratings.
Also what definition of media are you using? Are you referring only to television media or all media (from cnn to a law professor's blog)? Also, if you are using the ambiguous "mainstream media", then why was Ron Paul popular? He was ignored by most television media, but still had a strong base.
That is valid. But the irony is astounding! Though Bush was one of the worst presidents. The corporate sponsored media never held him accountable for his deceptions and those of his office. Was THAT out of HIS own efforts?
(The Scenic Route)
In simple terms... if the government were my significant other, I'd break up with her. She cheated, lied, killed my babies, AND took my money. Looking back I didn't learn anything positive from our relationship and wound up with the short end of the stick. AND attorneys are trying to collect "petroleum alimony" on me now!
So... This new partner is trying to court me. Telling me all sorts of sweet things. That make me feel good inside, but only AFTER my ex reeked havoc, and they are both from the same town. I'm not dating people from that town anymore.
I used to be a prolific baseball pitcher... While at bat I was pretty good at reading the other teams pitcher. The offensive team called for a "Time-out" and changed the pitcher to a woman, and the catcher to a black man. The catcher keeps repeating "Hey batter batter! I have the audacity of hope." And a female pitcher is determined to strike me out, to show me that a female can do it to. But only after their last pitcher killed half my team, and blew up the diamond next to ours.
(End of the Scenic Rout)
Yet... Ron Paul didn't stand a chance since the corporate sponsored media was NOT behind him.
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=1572#stories
-Our current tools of communication are even more malleable than paper, even down to the individual reader. Exemplified by the ability of ad-sense to read the words on your page, and advertises accordingly.
So now that a ridiculous number of people have died, many of whom were civilians. Now that we have a new occupation in a distant land, and have built strong military bases. NOW Obama comes to save America! And suddenly our votes count! Suddenly what the American public things is resonating with its government? Suddenly THE PEOPLE are empowered again?
If the nation is lead by the leader, and changing the leader changes the policy. It is more like a dictatorship.
Things = thinks.
Pardon my accent. :-)
Actually the country is run by the party, not really the leader. I'm surprised we don't just switch over to a parliamentary system. I'm not saying that Obama changes things. The people have always been malleable mindless masses ready to be led. This hasn't change since the days of the first tribal war. You may have a point about television media being more influential in the age of 24 hour news, but I think it's far more factual to say that media is shaped by who has the money rather then by a overt choice by the media outlets.
Of course the hold of television media may be lessening with the rising popularity and extraordinary reaction time of blogs, the "new media".