Freedom of Democracy, except when its people we don't like.

semi-witty statment pointing out the hypocrisy here

what are you talking about, Gravel, Paul and Kucinich weren't barred from running. They lost.

That's funny, I don't remember Paul or Kucinich being kicked out of the election. Maybe voters just... oh, I don't know... didn't like their message?

Before the Dawn: FTFA: Hardliners allied with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the lead in Iran's parliamentary elections, according to partial results early Saturday, but reformists showed strength in some cities where the clerical leadership allowed them to compete.


Who elects the 'clerical leadership'?

Who elects the DNC and GOP leadership? Who elects the megachurch leaders who can sway millions of votes with their endorsements?

Whether by weight of opinion or law, American and Iranian (and many other) elections are determined by the views of unelected officials.

Seabon: what are you talking about, Gravel, Paul and Kucinich weren't barred from running. They lost.

Apparently they are not only owed an opportunity to run but also an opportunity to win, no matter how bad they are as candidates.

Not surprising. Bush seriously helped put Amenidijad in office last election by calling Iranian elections a sham before they took place, driving hardliners to the polls. These statements will have a similar effect.

So, the question is: why does the Bush administration want the hardliners to win the election?

But I thought the radicals would be ousted in favor of moderates if we gave them more time? Oh, wait. This is Iran.

Before the Dawn: Before the Dawn: Who elects the 'clerical leadership'?

Bored Horde: Who elects the DNC and GOP leadership? Who elects the megachurch leaders who can sway millions of votes with their endorsements?

I'd accuse you of being another Afternoon_Mighty_Gospel_Leather but he at least had the decency to provide amusing pictures instead of a essay-format text based spew in his profile.

Bored Horde: Who elects the DNC and GOP leadership? Who elects the megachurch leaders who can sway millions of votes with their endorsements?

Party leadership is chosen by party members. Church leadership (especially in megachurches) is chosen, or at least endorsed, by church membership.

And neither of these groups of leaders has the power to prevent anyone from running for any office.

Whether by weight of opinion or law, American and Iranian (and many other) elections are determined by the views of unelected officials.

"weight of opinion" is how leadership is supposed to be chosen in a democracy. What you're really unhappy about is that weight of opinion doesn't support the candidate(s) you favor.

Well guess what, democracy doesn't owe you that.

Comrade438: But I thought the radicals would be ousted in favor of moderates if we gave them more time? Oh, wait. This is Iran.

Yes, constant threats of military action by proxy through Israel or directly as well as a concerted economic campaign through the United Nations. Thats a lot of 'not applying' pressure to put on a mid-sized nation.

You know, the harder that the world presses on Iran's international businesses and trade, the more Iran will become an insular military power, much like North Korea or Iraq (post 1990).

Do as I say, not as I do.

Bored Horde: Before the Dawn: Before the Dawn: Who elects the 'clerical leadership'?

Bored Horde: Who elects the DNC and GOP leadership? Who elects the megachurch leaders who can sway millions of votes with their endorsements?

I'd accuse you of being another Afternoon_Mighty_Gospel_Leather but he at least had the decency to provide amusing pictures instead of a essay-format text based spew in his profile.

I've had a suspicion that it's him. He appears as the other alt disappears, and he's got a similar posting style.

Freedom of choice, is what you've got.
Freedom from choice, is what you want.

Ron Paul Revere: Seabon: what are you talking about, Gravel, Paul and Kucinich weren't barred from running. They lost.

I knew this response would be early.

Considering 90% of the media is controlled by 5 corporations, there's a lot of substance to the argument that equal time provisions should be enacted (not that I necessarily agree).

Had Ron Paul not had such massive fundraising success, it's likely he would've been as marginalized by the media as Gravel and Kucinich. Hell, they kept him out of a debate despite all that.

Saying they were able to run is equal to actually giving their platforms the same amount of attention as the big name candidates is laughable.



Ron Paul receive more media attention than his poll numbers ever indicated he would. He was all over the media for his astonishing fund raising numbers. But guess what? It never translated into popular support. People didn't support his candidacy. He didn't lose because of some media conspiracy - he lost because people weren't interested in voting for him.

Bored Horde: Yes, constant threats of military action by proxy through Israel or directly as well as a concerted economic campaign through the United Nations. Thats a lot of 'not applying' pressure to put on a mid-sized nation.

You know, the harder that the world presses on Iran's international businesses and trade, the more Iran will become an insular military power, much like North Korea or Iraq (post 1990).

Ah, yes. We can't win: we're the ones who have to reconcile. Iran's government doesn't want to reconcile with the West over the nuclear issue. The Iranian people don't. Capitulating won't change that fact, nor would it suddenly provide the victorious Iranians a reason to vote in the moderates. Iran isn't heading for a moderate revolution; if we stop such wishful thinking and perhaps derive an actual policy of dealing with them we'd be much better off.

Comrade438: But I thought the radicals would be ousted in favor of moderates if we gave them more time? Oh, wait. This is Iran.

Impatient, aren't you? Give it time.

Calvin Coolidge: That's funny, I don't remember Paul or Kucinich being kicked out of the election. Maybe voters just... oh, I don't know... didn't like their message?

And yet, they were kept out of debates.

Calvin Coolidge: Ron Paul Revere: Seabon: what are you talking about, Gravel, Paul and Kucinich weren't barred from running. They lost.

I knew this response would be early.

Considering 90% of the media is controlled by 5 corporations, there's a lot of substance to the argument that equal time provisions should be enacted (not that I necessarily agree).

Had Ron Paul not had such massive fundraising success, it's likely he would've been as marginalized by the media as Gravel and Kucinich. Hell, they kept him out of a debate despite all that.

Saying they were able to run is equal to actually giving their platforms the same amount of attention as the big name candidates is laughable.



Ron Paul receive more media attention than his poll numbers ever indicated he would. He was all over the media for his astonishing fund raising numbers. But guess what? It never translated into popular support. People didn't support his candidacy. He didn't lose because of some media conspiracy - he lost because people weren't interested in voting for him.

Go out and ask the next 10 people you see if they know who Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich are.

...

Done? Now maybe you realize why they didn't have any support.

Seabon: what are you talking about, Gravel, Paul and Kucinich weren't barred from running. They lost.

Because "________" did not approve of them.

A better analogy would be an elected American politician at the national level who isn't a Democrat or Republican

Bernie Sanders is about the only one who comes to mind.

/Lieberman doesn't count

Ron Paul Revere: Out of curiousity, how much of that do you think could be attributed to reportedly referring to him as a "fringe candidate," as well as continually reporting poll numbers?

Hmmm...can you cite an example of the mainstream media calling him a "fringe candidate" in those words?

As for poll numbers, they are news and that is what news organizations are supposed to report.

Will you honestly say you believe that polling/reporting on polling has a negligible impact on elections?

They probably have an effect, but not an overwhelming one. For example, in the democratic race Obama seems to have been able to overcome almost a year of "Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls" inevitability reporting.

Will you honestly say that the big 5 didn't do everything in their power to make him appear crazy and unelectable (not to say he didn't do his own fair share of that)?

I'll honestly say that, yes. I don't believe Ron Paul was ever perceived as enough of a threat for the bigger candidates to "do everything in their power" about him in any way. They used "everything in their power" to weaken each other, because that's where the threat was.

Mosty, they ignored Paul except when they were forced to confront him in the actual debates.

Ron Paul Revere:
Out of curiousity, how much of that do you think could be attributed to reportedly referring to him as a "fringe candidate," as well as continually reporting poll numbers?

Uh, he was a fringe candidate. Most of his policy positions do not jive with the current GOP platform. The Iraq war wasn't the only place where he differed with the other candidates; his philosophy on government was starkly different than the other candidates'. That makes him a 'fringe' candidate, or a 'long-shot' candidate (which is what I heard him referred to in the media).


Will you honestly say you believe that polling/reporting on polling has a negligible impact on elections?

I don't think that getting low poll numbers necessarily harms a candidate's chances. I do think that getting high poll numbers can cause many people to say to themselves "Hey, who is this guy? I wonder why so many people support him. Maybe I'll check him out and see what he's all about."


Will you honestly say that the big 5 didn't do everything in their power to make him appear crazy and unelectable (not to say he didn't do his own fair share of that)?

They never really had to smear him because he never garnered enough support to be a 'threat.' His somewhat radical views on the elimination of key government agencies did more to mark him as 'out there' than any media coverage.

Look, I tossed a few bucks the guys' way early on in the race when after he schooled Giulianni and the other GOP candidates on the reasons behind terrorism. The GOP has a very dangerous disconnect from reality on this position. But Paul is simply not appealing to a large number of Americans because they don't want some really old guy they never heard of who promises to eliminate the CIA and other well-known government agencies. I'm not saying whether or not they should be eliminated... but I think if you polled people, they'd overwhelmingly be against disbanding the CIA, the IRS, etc. Things that Paul talked about rather prominently in debates and the media.

I'm not ever sure why I'm wasting my time arguing with someone who is so obviously biased towards him (Ron Paul Revere? Give me a break.)

Krymore:

I've had a suspicion that it's him. He appears as the other alt disappears, and he's got a similar posting style.

Oh wow, he added a profile.. If you can stand to read through all that crap, it's clearly Hellbent_For_Afternoon_Mighty_Baltimore_Lord_Freeper_Dog_Madness_Delight He's not even making an attempt to hide it.

Argh2

So, the question is: why does the Bush administration want the hardliners to win the election?

That will make it considerably easier for the neocons to fake a pretext for invading Iran.

subby wins the Idiot of the Day Award. The three cooky candidates you mentioned had a free run at the elections. Two of them even ran under major parties. The population looked at that brand of craziness and said "Umm...you three guys are nutcases. I'll never vote for you in a million years."

In Iran, they bar everyone from running except hardlines that agree with the dictator. And those that are barred are mainstream moderates that the population wants to vote in.

Hardliners have a way of getting elected when a country faces an external threat. Considering that that is how Bush won the 2004 election, he shouldn't be so surprised at the results in Iran.

I thought the most damning evidence of a media bias against Paul was how his second place finish in Nevada was downplayed or his exclusion from debates for being a 'longshot' despite polling better than Thompson and Guiliani in New Hampshire. I think a lot of people disagreed with his views but I also believe that he wasn't allowed to really make his case.

Heck we got both kind candidates here in the US. Corporate Bought and Lobby Bought!

For those saying that Ron Paul and the ohters had a shot, give it up. The GOP/DNC leadership did not like them because they don't play the corporate game. So they don't get invited to debates and they are marginalized by the media. Look at all of Hannity's "fair and balanced" comments regarding Ron Paul. It was sunk from day one because he is not a blessed GOP guy.

As for third parties, they might have a shot if ballot access laws were not designed to keep pretty much every one but the Reps/Dems off of the people you can vote for.

Our two party system is broke, especially when there is little difference between the parties. What a choice, you can have Coke or Pepsi... wooo!!!!

Why would Dennis care? He got to keep his day job, and he's got

Before the Dawn: Who elects the 'clerical leadership'?

i do.

Ron Paul Revere:

Considering 90% of the media is controlled by 5 corporations, there's a lot of substance to the argument that equal time provisions should be enacted (not that I necessarily agree).


Jeffrey Zucker, CEO NBC TV, Zionist
Robert Iger, CEO ABC, Zionist
Leslie Moonves, CEO CBS, grandnephew of David Ben Gurion, Zionist
Jonathon Klein, CEO CNN, Zionist
Peter F. Chernin, President and COO FOX, Zionist

Iran cooked something? Count me in, extra hot please.

helix400 subby wins the Idiot of the Day Award. The three cooky candidates you mentioned had a free run at the elections. Two of them even ran under major parties. The population looked at that brand of craziness and said "Umm...you three guys are nutcases. I'll never vote for you in a million years."

What exactly is it about their brand of craziness that makes them nutcases? Because they don't dole out the same, ambiguous double-speak that makes up most of the front-running candidates speeches? Obama, Clinton, McCain...all I hear is more of the same.

Also, I'd love to hear what percentage of the population you mentioned decided not vote for these Three Stooges in a million years. Maybe some of that really does have to do with "The Media" not giving them fair air time. As far as I know, Gravel is still in the race, yet he hasn't been included in a Democratic debate since before October. Of course maybe he could have had the chance to if he had raised more money, but without public campaign finance reform, not every candidate will have a fair chance to be heard, will they?

To end this post, I'll include a random, out of context quote from a dead, white philanderer that will miraculously cause you to re-evaluate your own views and perhaps make you see that these men are not that crazy, or at least any more crazy than anybody who thinks Obama or Clinton or McCain really will be the ones to change this country for the better.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin

Ron Paul Revere: No, I can't remember one off the top of my head. The most common term I remember being used was "longshot," over and over and over every time he was referenced.

Your argument (here and on the polling point) seems to be that the main stream media sabotaged him by telling us how he was doing.

That he was a longshot candidate was a fact. That he always polled poorly was a fact. Arguing that the media should not tell us facts seems...bizarre.

Ron Paul Revere: He's also had the media licking his balls. That helps a lot.

My point is that the media didn't start "licking his balls" until after he demonstrated real viability by persuading folks in Iowa to support him in contrast to the (then) national polls.

If Ron Paul had been able, through charm or command of the issues or what have you, to persuade an early state to favor him in spite of his poor polling, then he would also have enjoyed some ball washing.

Ron Paul Revere: What you say about the candidates is true. However, in the ground war online, I do remember the longest threads on Fark were always about Ron Paul, and they were always filled with people coming out of the woodwork to slime him. No other candidate received such a reception during that time.

Tell me - do people do that to someone they truly think has no shot? Or, do they do so because they fear the target?

Ron Paul supporters engaged in silly tactics like trotting to easily overwhelmed straw polls and online "surveys" and running up ridiculous "victories" and then claiming they were as legitimate as scientific polls. And they went to every online forum (not just Fark, but Digg and even freerepublic) and submitted fawning stories/headlines and then in the comments claiming that the Paul movement was way bigger than it was and that ignoring easily defrauded surveys was a conspiracy and that everyone who didn't support Paul hated the constitution. And they did all of this over and over and over and over again.

In short they were silly and annoying.

And the Fark response to silly and annoying is...snark. Mean, nasty, annoyed snark

And among Fark admins, the response to these flamefest threads is to...find more of them. Because those threads attract eyeballs which is ultimately what Fark is selling to its advertisers.

Later on, more sensible Paul supporters were able to overcome some of the crazies and make a more sensible case. But by then the "Ron Paul supporters are loony" meme had already set in.

And if there is anything more endemic to Fark than snark its running memes into the ground.

I'm not claiming that all of the attacks and ridicule of Paul is deserved. But it was, by and large, brought on by the extreme annoyance of the early Paul movement's stupid tactics.

So, to answer your question directly, people attack someone who has no shot when they find that person (or his supporters) to be incredibly annoying and disruptive.

helix400: subby wins the Idiot of the Day Award. The three cooky candidates you mentioned had a free run at the elections. Two of them even ran under major parties. The population looked at that brand of craziness and said "Umm...you three guys are nutcases. I'll never vote for you in a million years."

In Iran, they bar everyone from running except hardlines that agree with the dictator. And those that are barred are mainstream moderates that the population wants to vote in.

They got such fair media coverage that you knew that ALL THREE of them ran under major parties.

ron paul revere

yeah, phone polling should be eliminated. if people find out only 3% or 10% or 90% of americans love ron paul or mike gravel or whomever else doesn't make it in american politics for unfair reasons; well that's just awful. i wish it were more like north korea where koreans believe and hear about how 99.99% of people would fight and die for kim jong il to lead them....

Ron Paul Revere: Apik0r0s: Jeffrey Zucker, CEO NBC TV, Zionist
Robert Iger, CEO ABC, Zionist
Leslie Moonves, CEO CBS, grandnephew of David Ben Gurion, Zionist
Jonathon Klein, CEO CNN, Zionist
Peter F. Chernin, President and COO FOX, Zionist

And people call me a racist/fascist/bigot/etc. for pointing out that the Jews do, in fact, run the media.

The truth... she is a b*tch.

There's a big difference between saying "many Jews hold positions of importance in the media" and "The Jews run the media". "The Jews" are not some omnipresent, hive minded, collective individual. Neither are Muslims, neither are gays, etc. I'm not trying to pull a Tatsuma and start an inquisition calling half the people in the thread antisemites, but just as a friendly tip, you might want to use better wording to avoid those kinds of misunderstandings.

ImOscar: Also, I'd love to hear what percentage of the population you mentioned decided not vote for these Three Stooges in a million years. Maybe some of that really does have to do with "The Media" not giving them fair air time.

Core Favorability/Opposition Among All Voters Feb 2008. link.

Candidate | Def. FOR | Def. AGAINST | Net

Obama | 34% | 43% | -7 |
McCain | 34% | 33% | +1
Huckabee | 22% | 45% | -23
Clinton | 32% | 46% | -14
Paul | 10% | 59% | -49

So according to this survey, at least 69% of voters had heard of Ron Paul. And he registered MASSIVE opposition among voters.

So I fully stand by what I said. America looked at this brand of crazy and said "No, you're a nutcase".

UltimateLazyPerson: They got such fair media coverage that you knew that ALL THREE of them ran under major parties.

Oops. You are right. I was thinking Nader was one of the three. Dumb mistake.

Ron Paul Revere: I'd just prefer that people decide who to vote for without the media telling them that someone they might like isn't viable. People that might vote for a candidate choose not to and opt for the "next best" based on strategy rather than voting with their conscience. It engenders and feeds on the desire to pick the winner rather than voting for one's beliefs, and I think that's bad for a representative republic.

I'm sorry but I'm still struggling with this concept. People can be lead astray by the facts so we should keep these facts from them so that they won't be confused by them?

Should we perhaps have a ministry of truth deciding which facts the people are equipped to handle and which not? Constant repetition of the death toll in Iraq has, arguably, played an inappropriate roll in forming Americans' opinion of the war, so lets keep that potentially misleading fact from them.

I know you aren't proposing something so silly, but it seems to me to be the logical endpoint of your reasoning.

helix400 So according to this survey, at least 69% of voters had heard of Ron Paul. And he registered MASSIVE opposition among voters.

One down, two to go, right?

Of course, Kucinich dropped out of the race in January. Still, as of February 23 Gravel was still in the race, so why would he not be included in the survey? Interesting how even supposed independent pollsters don't give fair representation to all candidates.

helix400: ImOscar: Also, I'd love to hear what percentage of the population you mentioned decided not vote for these Three Stooges in a million years. Maybe some of that really does have to do with "The Media" not giving them fair air time.

Core Favorability/Opposition Among All Voters Feb 2008. link.

Candidate | Def. FOR | Def. AGAINST | Net

Obama | 34% | 43% | -7 |
McCain | 34% | 33% | +1
Huckabee | 22% | 45% | -23
Clinton | 32% | 46% | -14
Paul | 10% | 59% | -49

So according to this survey, at least 69% of voters had heard of Ron Paul. And he registered MASSIVE opposition among voters.

So I fully stand by what I said. America looked at this brand of crazy and said "No, you're a nutcase".

When the sane members of the body politic get America and the world into such a mess that currently exists, I find myself agreeing with the "nutcase". From my living room, there seemed to be a large media blackout of Ron Paul. His primary vote percentages never got displayed on my local news. Not even when he was getting bigger numbers than front runners religeous wackjobs media favorites like Huckabee. Not that anyone will care by the time the Republican primary hits New Mexico, but I plan on voting Paul just because I really don't McCain.

ImOscar: Of course, Kucinich dropped out of the race in January. Still, as of February 23 Gravel was still in the race, so why would he not be included in the survey? Interesting how even supposed independent pollsters don't give fair representation to all candidates.

I foudd an older 2007 poll (I can't find a more specific date) that said

"Dennis Kucinich is not viewed favorably by likely voters -- 24 percent have a favorable opinion of him, 31 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him, 12 percent are neutral, and 33 percent don't know enough about him to say."

So, in this older poll, Kucinich was known by two-thirds of voters. Also..

"Mike Gravel is the least known Democratic candidate. Only 5 percent of likely Democratic primary voters have a favorable opinion of Gravel, 15 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him, 13 percent are neutral, and 67 percent don't know enough about him to say. Gravel's net favorability rating is -10 percent."

So only one-third knew of Gravel. Though, he's only on the ballot in 20 states. That may have played a role in him being shut of debates in states that he wasn't on the ballot.

Hot Iranian Women:

Ron Paul Revere: I only feel this way about this one, particular issue.

And I only care about that one particular death toll issue (not really, but let's pretend) and other people only care about some other issue.

If we start deciding what it is and is not healthy for the media to tell the people then inevitably the number of issues considered too unhealthy will continually grow until there is a long list of things we aren't told for our own good.

Ron Paul Revere: If no one had that information, they wouldn't be basing their votes on the strategy of picking a person more likely to win. They would vote with their hearts for the person they believed in most.

In our system voting strategically isn't stupid. If there are only two likely winners and I really think one is much better than the other then in our system it is wise strategy for me to choose the better of the likely winners instead of the one I support the most.

The solution to this is instant runoff elections, not regulating what the media tells us. Then I can prefer the candidate I prefer and then wisely use the polling data to choose the best popular candidate as a second choice.

I also continue to dispute your apparent belief that this was a big factor in Paul's failure to achieve traction. Even with polling data not reported and instant runoff voting I think he still wouldn't have won any races. Because his policies, regardless of whether you think they are objectively a good idea, are not what Americans want.

Ron Paul Revere: This same concept is why I also support either making all primaries occur on the same day (no momentum factor to sway votes), or completely eliminating them altogether and replacing them with instant runoff voting on election day.

Your first suggestion is a horrible idea. All it would do is throw the decision to the candidates who have the money and previous name recognition to play nation wide. This year it would have almost certainly meant a Giuliani vs Clinton race. Our present primary system is far from perfect but they at least allow for some possibility for issues other than pure fund raising and name recognition to play a roll.

Your second suggestion wouldn't be terrible but I don't think it would affect things positively either. The big names (Thompson, Giuliani, Clinton, McCain) would still have a huge advantage and Ron Paul would be lost among the hundreds of Virginia Algars and Lowell Fellures and the like.

2 can be a spectrum.

right?

Ron Paul Revere [TotalFark]
You know who cost Ron Paul some credibility? Guys like you.
I was a Paulistinian. When his campaign showed their true colors the night before Super Tuesday (where I'd seen ZERO advertising in Los Angeles), I watched the paltry results and was swayed by Barack Obama's brilliant speech. (I'd been a fan, but chose Paul because of his economic reform platform...even changed parties to vote for him!)
If you really think Ron Paul stands for racism and xenophobia, then I must've picked the wrong candidate at the start...and misunderstood his platform of "protecting individual rights and freedoms."
If you have any respect for the man, change FARK handles before you spread your kind of hatred. It's intolerable to anyone who believes in the ideals on which America is based!