sois Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 How do y'all feel about them? I was trying to kick around reasons for/against them. 1. I do thing they're very douchey and a waste of money. 2. However, people gave those candidates that money because they want that candidate to win. It's not my place to tell anyone what to do with their money. If you want to waste it on campaign commercials, that's OK. 3. OTOH, if I were the candidate, I would feel bad wasting the money on ads. Even worse if they were the shit talking ads that candidates use these days. 4. However, I'm guessing political ads are like Black Friday for TV stations. Do they make a shit ton on these? I would hope so. Tell me your thoughts. Homer, this is a legit post. Do not be scared to say smart things to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 If nothing else Im ready for this election to be over so I dont have to watch these things or get political phone calls anymore, for at least 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 They're bullshit. I HOPE nobody is making they're mind up off a 30 second spot that is about 80% fabrication / slight of word / misinformation. And, once the race is run the winning candidate is then beholden to the big money donors for the length of their term. I'm with Jamie on campaign finance reform... whether that goes to flat amounts each can spend (should be WAYYYYYY less than than either is now) or a government fixed amount spending campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 I also believe in publicly funded elections, but that's a different story. My main concern today is should I ding a candidate because of all the bullshit TV ads or are they just doing as their donators wish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 They use them because they work. There is lots of evidence that shows it. If you want to find someone to blame, blame the voting public. The only way this stops is by holding the candidates responsible for the content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 I will never fix that problem. People will always be stupid. I just don't know if I should disqualify anyone who makes a political ad. That would eliminate pretty much everyone. Did yall vote for anyone with a political ad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysabengal Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 I agree with most of what is said above. Unfortunely more of the ads come from "pacs", so the candidate can say "Someone else said that" Too bad they can't have a non biased panal, that will refute the lies right after the ad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 If you believe anything from [b]any[/b] Super PAC on face value you're too dumb to vote. Or procreate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1351270240' post='1174739'] [color=#ff0000]I also believe in publicly funded elections[/color], but that's a different story. My main concern today is should I ding a candidate because of all the bullshit TV ads or are they just doing as their donators wish? [/quote] x2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Well I was looking to see how much money each candidate got from the government for their campaigns, and I found this website that shows how much they have spent and where it came from. Oddly, it says neither Romney nor Obama used any federal funds. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Why would they need Federal funds when the two have collectively raised $2 billion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1351348635' post='1174955'] Why would they need Federal funds when the two have collectively raised $2 billion? [/quote] It's part of the law that every group is supposed to be eligible for an equal amount of federal money in order to give smaller parties a chance to campaign. I just thought it was something to bring up. I never knew the law was so complex. Of course what law isn't complex? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Eligible doesn't mean mandatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1351349241' post='1174959'] Eligible doesn't mean mandatory [/quote] Oh I realize that, but how many times do you see a politician turning down a free hand out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongo Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Can't imagine campaign reform can touch the 'viral' campaigning on social media. You can meme the most insane lies, and risk no repercussions. I'm willing to bet people on both sides of the party line are getting paid big money to flood Facebook with this crap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 IIRC, accepting federal matching funds puts limitations on how much on can raise and spend. At least, I'm pretty sure it used to be that way. But, saturating the airwaves with propaganda and attack ads has a high cost, so pres candidates tend to decline matching funds. On the plus side, I know my "mute" button on the remote still works. Unless I break it from using it so often. If it were up to me, I'd argue for these reforms: A Free dedicated "political channel" that all satellite/cable systems would have to offer for a designated period previous to national elections. All national office races would be eligible and the time would be allocated according to some kind of fair formula. Paid tv spots for national offices: [i]x[/i] number of 5 minute, 15 minute, 30 minute presentations by candidates. Make 'em actually say something. For shorter paid spots, limit the hours during which such ads can be played, say only after 8pm or such. (Because showing goofy looking pictures of one's opponent while distorting their character and record is obscene and who wants to expose their children to that...) Likewise with debates: forget all this back and forth nonsense. Each person gets 45 minutes to say whatever they want on the agreed upon topic, then each candidate gets 15 minutes to rebut/summarize.) Moderators get a stopwatch and that's about all we would hear from them. "Time's up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351556738' post='1175546'] IIRC, accepting federal matching funds puts limitations on how much on can raise and spend. At least, I'm pretty sure it used to be that way. But, saturating the airwaves with propaganda and attack ads has a high cost, so pres candidates tend to decline matching funds. On the plus side, I know my "mute" button on the remote still works. Unless I break it from using it so often. If it were up to me, I'd argue for these reforms: A Free dedicated "political channel" that all satellite/cable systems would have to offer for a designated period previous to national elections. All national office races would be eligible and the time would be allocated according to some kind of fair formula. Paid tv spots for national offices: [i]x[/i] number of 5 minute, 15 minute, 30 minute presentations by candidates. Make 'em actually say something. For shorter paid spots, limit the hours during which such ads can be played, say only after 8pm or such. (Because showing goofy looking pictures of one's opponent while distorting their character and record is obscene and who wants to expose their children to that...) Likewise with debates: forget all this back and forth nonsense. Each person gets 45 minutes to say whatever they want on the agreed upon topic, then each candidate gets 15 minutes to rebut/summarize.) Moderators get a stopwatch and that's about all we would hear from them. "Time's up." [/quote] C-span? I doubt it would affect anything for commercials to be played on there since most of them nothing is going on except people voting then walking around shaking hands and played twister. The could pay PBS to run political ads on there at night when the programming is more adult than child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351349327' post='1174960'] Oh I realize that, but how many times do you see a politician turning down a free hand out? [/quote] I'm about 99 1/2% positive that if you accept the federal funds you're strapped / mandated to jump through certain hoops. And, since Romney and Obama are big money donors' dick suckers they have no need to be constrained by the federal restraints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Next time there is an election, I will run for something and see if I can do it with zero $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1351616913' post='1175619'] I'm about 99 1/2% positive that if you accept the federal funds you're strapped / mandated to jump through certain hoops. And, since Romney and Obama are big money donors' dick suckers they have no need to be constrained by the federal restraints. [/quote] I know Romney and Obama are rich bastards. Could you imagine Joe Blow trying to do a Presidential campaign for $250,000? They couldn't even purchase a 10 second ad during the Super Bowl. I can't think of anything that they could do nationwide to reach the voters. I doubt they could even make a paper flier for each voter in the U.S.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351624965' post='1175647'] I know Romney and Obama are rich bastards. Could you imagine Joe Blow trying to do a Presidential campaign for $250,000? They couldn't even purchase a 10 second ad during the Super Bowl. I can't think of anything that they could do nationwide to reach the voters. I doubt they could even make a paper flier for each voter in the U.S.. [/quote] Hence... our primary problem with the way federal government is initially determined and then run. The "winners" that have sucked at the money donor teat are then beholden to do their bidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1351626241' post='1175658'] Hence... our primary problem with the way federal government is initially determined and then run. The "winners" that have sucked at the money donor teat are then beholden to do their bidding. [/quote] X a bajillion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1351626241' post='1175658'] Hence... our primary problem with the way federal government is initially determined and then run. The "winners" that have sucked at the money donor teat are then beholden to do their bidding. [/quote] So how can this be fixed? Take the lowest amount of money that was spent by one of the big 2 parties and make that the amount of money the government gives to 3rd parties? How else can the government make it fair to Presidential candidates that are not a Democrat or Republican? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351627804' post='1175668'] So how can this be fixed? Take the lowest amount of money that was spent by one of the big 2 parties and make that the amount of money the government gives to 3rd parties? How else can the government make it fair to Presidential candidates that are not a Democrat or Republican? [/quote] Publicly Funded Elections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1351635231' post='1175724'] Publicly Funded Elections [/quote] That wouldn't help, because then when a rich guy like Trump ran for President there would be a huge eruption from citizens that a rich person should not be getting free money from the government to run for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.