3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIf I wasnt targetted by the usual scare mongering that goes on, how would I know who to fear? If i have to live with this personality for at least 4 years, at least they should look good on camera and be able to project a certain stateliness.
Think of it, when is the last time you were swayed by a political advertisement? When is the last time you knew of someone who was swayed by a political advertisement? When was the last time you felt informed via a political advertisement?
They have been popularity contests for so long now I think there would be a loss of national pride if the hoopla was taken out of the whole thing. I'm not just being a sardonic pratt either. Do you think the greater electorate out there will lose confidence in the prestige of their nation if we suddenly switched to election lite on election night? I honestly think it would filter into public morale such that some of the finer unintangible unintangibles like investor confidence could take a pounding.
I dont know. The ad campaigns have been largely negative over the past few years, but we have also learned to live with a negatively biased news service.
If you can decipher what really is being said in the big campaigns, then how come the rest of the citizenry are suddenly incapable of making a more informed choice? What makes you so special? The scale of population makes it unlikely that pollies will ever return to the hustings to debate each other in the local Town Halls in an articulate, informed and well disciplined manner.
Ads cut to the core of any issue. We all should be very media savvy by now if we've lived through the last 20 or so years of TV. If these pretenders to the crown can't even construct a clever enough add campaign, why should we entrust them with the running of our country?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI was not calling anybody a name. I simply responded to the original post with my perception that political ads, though distasteful at times, serve the purpose of giving us insight into the candidate for good and bad.
This is a debate forum not a name calling forum the last time I checked. If you have something to say spit it out man!!!!!!!
I have not known you to be disrespectful up until this point and it saddens me.
If I may , let me give an example of how my critical thinking worked in a senatorial campaign in my area. The Republican has been airing ads that feature members of his family talking about all his attributes. To me this is silly. It is image making. He has portrayed his opponent as liking to party with Playboy Playmates and receiving contributions from "porn moguls." He even said that he chose to go to school at the state school and not another state. I keep hearing image, image image from this guy.
How was I being disrespectful?
Originally posted by sasquatch672Ah yes the rights of the individual. What about the rights of the individual who is on at home on their own private property and does not wish to be bombarded by ads? What about their rights? Surely their must be harrassment laws to restrict such ads via mail and telephone calls? TV ads may be a little tricker since they are not directed at a particular residence, however.
But I really don't believe that the way to correct that problem is to restrict political speech. Example: The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (Bush) - a political 527. I disagree with everything they said (and I'm a Republican), but they have the right to be heard. It's up to people to educate themselves.
This is about as idealistic, and unrealist ...[text shortened]... come smarter and more educated. Ahh...hungry. More later if I feel like it.
I like your idea about the flat tax and making elections publicly funded. I think the less money politicians have to work with the better they start to act. This includes during an election as well as after they get into office. The only way to fight the beast within both parties is not through direct confrontation, rather, it is through starvation. After all, direct confrontation only works if one is stronger than the other. The biggest problem I see with your idea, however, is why would either political party offer such a suggestion or allow such a plan to come to come about? It has been my experience that power, once achieved, is difficult, if not impossible to relinquish or be overthrown.
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957Oops! I misread your post. Sorry.😳
I was not calling anybody a name. I simply responded to the original post with my perception that political ads, though distasteful at times, serve the purpose of giving us insight into the candidate for good and bad.
If I may , let me give an example of how my critical thinking worked in a senatorial campaign in my area. The Republican has been airi her state. I keep hearing image, image image from this guy.
How was I being disrespectful?
Anyway, as far as seeing the bad in a politician via political ads, I guess there is some merit in this. However, it is not enough for me to want to allow the game to continue as is.
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87I hear what you are saying. I would counter by saying that debates could be scheduled on TV at cetain times as well as time slots on TV to get their respective messages out to the public. The public would then need only turn on the TV when they are scheduled to come on if they are interested. If they are not interested, they need not watch. There need not be 100 political ads every time I turn on the TV that tell me asolutely nothing.
If I wasnt targetted by the usual scare mongering that goes on, how would I know who to fear? If i have to live with this personality for at least 4 years, at least they should look good on camera and be able to project a certain stateliness.
They have been popularity contests for so long now I think there would be a loss of national pride if the hoopla w uct a clever enough add campaign, why should we entrust them with the running of our country?
I say if you restrict the income for campaigning, you would force the politicians to return to the days of the Town Halls. They would have little else to do to campaign if the money were cut off to make a gazillion mind numbing ads. They would also have more time to attend such meetings due to the fact they would no longer need to spend all their time raising funds to campaign. I say spend the time perfecting the message and not raising $$$$ to get the message out.
Originally posted by whodeyI think this is where the problem lies though. If we the public knew the schedule of the political broadcasts would we really set aside time to watch?
I would counter by saying that debates could be scheduled on TV at cetain times as well as time slots on TV to get their respective messages out to the public. The public would then need only turn on the TV when they are scheduled to come on if they are interested. If they are not interested, they need not watch. .
Isnt this the reason why they wont tell us and they bombard us just to be sure.
I would love it if as a measure of civic responsibility every available channel were duty bound to simulataneously broadcast not ads but a series of debates that would take over the human interest /infotainment filler segment, of the major news hour program.
Each candidate in the two weeks leading up to the election, should say in the first week outline their platform and canvas their policies. In the second week they should have a series of round robin debates much like a mini chess tournament where on the issues polled by viewers as being most important the candidates all face off in pairs. Much like we now vote in contests such as Idol or Big Brother or any such reality show, the composition of who goes head to head towards the end of the second week then becomes the province of the people who essentially will dictate the relevance and importance of not only the issues but the candidates who in their opinion drive that issues.
Our technology can be tied in to ensure that rich parties dont stack the voting by getting their minions txting all day for the one question and the one candidate. It won't be that hard to ensure that only one vote per person will register for any topic or any candidate debating that topic.
The journalists for there part can hopefully maintain some objectivity by introducing wild card lesser subscribed candidates towards the end of the process, just to make sure the process does not bog down too quickly into a two party race.
Ultimately the technology that has been seen by many as being a total waste of time, could be creatively used to help reignite the passion for democracy within the ordinary person in the street.