The Pub Discussion Board

Jefferson · 2011-10-20 04:44:48

Why do we bother ourselves with these televised monstrosities anymore? I haven't checked Neilson, but I'm betting these things don't get too many viewers. Hell, I'm a political news junkie and a fiscal conservative and even I don't fucking watch these things anymore. I'm sorry, I don't want to watch as Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman rip into each other and give Barack Obama even more ammunition to use against whoever gets the Republican nomination.

Were you aware that debates were not part of the political landscape until TV came along? It's true. 3dsmile

I vote we end them. We don't need them. I have the internet! (Duh! Right?) I have gotten used to instant access to any information I want. I don't want to have to sit and watch TV for two hours to hear what Rick Perry has to say about Social Security. I want the governor of Texas to hire himself a nerd, build a fucking website and then post essays; Don't worry, Governor, you don't have to write them yourself. You can have someone else do it. I want the candidates to post essays telling me, and the rest of the world, their stance on various important topics of the day.

Everything from standards like abortion, death penalty and gun control to topics of war: the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war in Libya, the coming war in Iran and newer, domestic topics such as changing Social Security and Medicare, repairing or changing the tax system, what he or she is going to do to get this country growing again. How do we restart the American economy? How do we get people to start hiring again?

I want to be able to go to their websites and read, exactly what they think about every hot new topic that comes around that proverbial corner. I want to know what Mitt Romney thinks of the latest bill going through the House or Senate. I want them to respond to things their fellow candidates say, as well as things the President or other democratic politicians might say. I should not have to watch Fox News or CNN to find out what Herman Cain thinks of Rick Perry's attack on his 9-9-9 tax plan. I want to read it, right from Mr. Cain, on Mr. Cain's website.

I think everyone, who has any interest, in politics, should build just such a site. Who knows, maybe someone out there, some poor, out of work house painter or some such, a real fan of politics who has all kinds of time to sit around and consider how to make things better, has come up with a great idea on how to solve some national issue but, because he only talks about it with his wife and a few friends, and none of them think this silly old house painter knows what the hell he's talking about, they all put him down and laugh at him behind his back. What they don't know is his idea, maybe with just one or two small changes, really could save the world.

Last edited by Jefferson (2011-10-20 04:47:42)

Eric Storm · 2011-10-20 05:22:02

Jefferson wrote:
Were you aware that debates were not part of the political landscape until TV came along? It's true.

Um.... no, it's not. Ask any high-school debate student. Here's the link, but they are called "Lincoln-Douglas" debates for a reason: Wikipedia page on Lincoln-Douglas debates

While I happen to agree with your idea that the candidates all need to post their views on a website in a series of articles, or blog posts, or whatever, I strongly disagree that debates are not useful.

Just ask Herman Cain how useful they are. This man went from LOW single-digit performance in the polls, to the front-runner at nearly 30%. How has he managed this? Debate performance. You can't attribute it to anything else. He has less money than ALL of the other top-tier candidates, and he hasn't even been campaigning hard in the early-primary states... yet he is STILL ahead. Why? Because he's been kicking ass in the debates with a clear message and good performance against his opponents.

Your comment about not wanting to sit through two hours of debate is indicative of what is WRONG with our nation: Our people think shallowly, and are unable to maintain focus for the time it takes to actually absorb information. We do not need to promote this kind of thinking in our political process. Instead, we need to get people to think carefully and deeply about the person they are going to choose for office. That is why debates are important: They require immediate response from the candidates. Any response posted to a website has been spin-doctored all to hell by the candidate's staff. What they say on stage to an unexpected question or comment is all them.

So, yes, website-based platform messages are a good thing. No, abandoning the debate process is not a positive step forward.

Eric Storm

Storymaster69 · 2011-10-30 04:00:23

Just playing devil's advocate here. What is the current literacy rate in the US? If candidates were to post essays how many people would either instantly go glaze eyed thinking, "ugg I hated those things in school, no way am I going to read one now that I'm out of school." or even worse how many people have the reading and comprehension skills to actually understand what is being said without someone verbally spoon feeding the highlights to them?

Jefferson · 2011-10-30 04:11:02

I have no idea what the literacy rate is in the US. I would hope it's in the mid to high ninety percent. But even most of those who can read would go, as you put it, "glaze eyed" reading a bunch of policy essays as written by presidential candidates or their staff. Then again, most of those "glaze eyed" people also go glaze eyed during political debates broadcast on TV and about twenty minutes into it remember something more fun to do; like walking on hot coals or broken glass.

The people who would read them are people like myself. I may not understand everything that's written but I'm not looking for hard numbers and referenced sources and all that. I just want a really good idea of where the candidate stands. I want to know why this person is running for president. I want to know what they're passionate about, besides the big white house and the $200,000 a year paycheck. I don't want a repeat of our current president where we have no idea what his plans are except for some vague "Hopey changy" ideas.

And yes, before you ask, we can get this from the televised debates but it would be nice to have it written down where you could say later on "Mr. President, this is what your policy essay said when you ran... Why the change?"

I would imagine, these essays would also be good, and bad, for the media. It would help reporters looking for a quote about a certain topic and it would help stop some of the near yellow journalism that occurs once America's old media has picked it's candidate and begins running attack stories against anyone who challenges that ordained candidate. It would also aid in stopping the media, or at least some individual reporters or on-air talent, from flat out lying about a candidate's stance on one topic or another. If it's written down, previous to the attack in the media, the candidate can say "Mr. So-and-so has a lovely imagination but if you read my stand on this topic on my website, you'll see that Mr. So-and-so either can't read or has flat out lied about my stand."

Last edited by Jefferson (2011-10-30 04:17:59)

Eric Storm · 2011-10-30 04:40:40

Jefferson wrote:
I have no idea what the literacy rate is in the US. I would hope it's in the mid to high ninety percent.

The CIA World Factbook says 99%. I don't believe that for a second, so I don't think there are reliable figures on it.

But even most of those who can read would go, as you put it, "glaze eyed" reading a bunch of policy essays as written by presidential candidates or their staff. Then again, most of those "glaze eyed" people also go glaze eyed during political debates broadcast on TV and about twenty minutes into it remember something more fun to do; like walking on hot coals or broken glass.

The difference is that people do not go as "intellectual" on TV; they try to make things more understandable to the average citizen.

The people who would read them are people like myself. I may not understand everything that's written but I'm not looking for hard numbers and referenced sources and all that. I just want a really good idea of where the candidate stands. I want to know why this person is running for president. I want to know what they're passionate about, besides the big white house and the $200,000 a year paycheck. I don't want a repeat of our current president where we have no idea what his plans are except for some vague "Hopey changy" ideas.

Obama told us exactly what he wanted to do: Turn the US into a Nanny State like Europe. And that is exactly what he has repeatedly tried to do. We may not like it, but he DID tell us what he wanted.

And yes, before you ask, we can get this from the televised debates but it would be nice to have it written down where you could say later on "Mr. President, this is what your policy essay said when you ran... Why the change?"

I would imagine, these essays would also be good, and bad, for the media. It would help reporters looking for a quote about a certain topic and it would help stop some of the near yellow journalism that occurs once America's old media has picked it's candidate and begins running attack stories against anyone who challenges that ordained candidate. It would also aid in stopping the media, or at least some individual reporters or on-air talent, from flat out lying about a candidate's stance on one topic or another. If it's written down, previous to the attack in the media, the candidate can say "Mr. So-and-so has a lovely imagination but if you read my stand on this topic on my website, you'll see that Mr. So-and-so either can't read or has flat out lied about my stand."

In a world of debate transcripts... it's already written down as soon as the debate ends. I think that, rather than a lack of debate, what you might prefer is a different form of debate. Imagine that, instead of 60-second or 30-second "sound byte" answers during debates, give them each about 5 minutes per topic, and, say, 2 minutes for rebuttal after *everyone* has spoken. The debates may or may not be longer this way, but the ideas would be more coherently stated by the candidates, as they would not have to cram their ideas into such a short time.

These debates would not have moderator-asked questions, but would simply have specific topics, such as "tax reform", or "immigration reform", or such as that. The candidates could give their stance, and their plan, in such a way that everyone would understand it. No, it's not going to be more "fun" for the people who don't care, but it will certainly be clearer and more informative to the people who do.

And, of course, the transcript of their 5-minute speech at the debate COULD be put on a website, to be reviewed at later dates...

Eric Storm

The Pub Discussion Board

#1 2011-10-20 04:44:48

How the Debates could save the world.

#2 2011-10-20 05:22:02

Re: How the Debates could save the world.

Jefferson wrote:

#3 2011-10-30 04:00:23

Re: How the Debates could save the world.

#4 2011-10-30 04:11:02

Re: How the Debates could save the world.

#5 2011-10-30 04:40:40

Re: How the Debates could save the world.

Jefferson wrote:

Board footer