Dems exploiting the war - I completely agree with the Greens on this one

bootlegger10

El_Kabong wrote:

how does that answer what she asked? maybe they would care if they had some coverage, maybe not as much as the others are shoved down our throats but they are not even heard...they aren't given enough information to base if they actually care, the corporate media makes that decision for them. how can you say you don't care about something you know virtually nothing about? why don't they deserve coverage?

I have not said anything about the Green's parties views or whether or not they are deserving of coverage. I am merely pointing out that the general public does not care about the Green Party, and yes, you are correct that one reason is that they do not get news coverage. Another reason is that the country leans conservative (evidenced by GW winning in 2004, and with all the shit that is going down the Dems just barely took over the Senate). So of course the Green Party is not going to be the big newsmaker. If Democrats have to lean to the center to be electable in this country, you think the Green Party is going to do well? This is why the media does not cover them, because they are too far left to make a difference.

It sounds like you don't like the media's agenda, unless that agenda is pushing fringe political groups that you like. If the media did a story about the leader of the Green Party, people would think "Who is this? Oh yeah, someone who has no bearing on any political outcome in this country." And then they would think, "The media should spend hours a day on this guy. Enough with all of this news related to 98% of our political representatives." Well, maybe not that.

It just seems you want the media to start covering things for the heck of it. Every fringe political group deserves its day I guess.

polaris

the green party is irrelevant because the populace is primarily made up of apathetic people who really don't care much about anything aside from themselves ...

america is governed like a corporation ... so, as long as you have a populace who doesn't give a rats ass and continue to believe they are powerless - this is the end result ...

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

I have not said anything about the Green's parties views or whether or not they are deserving of coverage. I am merely pointing out that the general public does not care about the Green Party, and yes, you are correct that one reason is that they do not get news coverage. Another reason is that the country leans conservative (evidenced by GW winning in 2004, and with all the shit that is going down the Dems just barely took over the Senate). So of course the Green Party is not going to be the big newsmaker. If Democrats have to lean to the center to be electable in this country, you think the Green Party is going to do well? This is why the media does not cover them, because they are too far left to make a difference.

It sounds like you don't like the media's agenda, unless that agenda is pushing fringe political groups that you like. If the media did a story about the leader of the Green Party, people would think "Who is this? Oh yeah, someone who has no bearing on any political outcome in this country." And then they would think, "The media should spend hours a day on this guy. Enough with all of this news related to 98% of our political representatives." Well, maybe not that.

It just seems you want the media to start covering things for the heck of it. Every fringe political group deserves its day I guess.

The media should cover groups that have at least some strong support and the Greens have plenty of it. They just don't have the big bucks from the rich people wanting to keep their buddies in office. They don't stand a chance because they get no coverage, not in spite of it. How hard is that to understand? How are people supposed to care about someone they haven't even heard of yet? That makes no sense at all.
The country doesn't lean conservative, the voting population does. There are also plenty of people fed up with the government and would like to see someone get elected that would actually fix some things about this country....only people never get to see what anyone like that has to say because those parties are shut out by the media. Groups like Libertarians and the Greens have good ideas and a lot of things they'd like to talk about and should be talked about....only the things they care about aren't exactly what a corporate ran media wants everyone hearing.

Jeanwah

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The media should cover groups that have at least some strong support and the Greens have plenty of it. They just don't have the big bucks from the rich people wanting to keep their buddies in office. They don't stand a chance because they get no coverage, not in spite of it. How hard is that to understand? How are people supposed to care about someone they haven't even heard of yet? That makes no sense at all.
The country doesn't lean conservative, the voting population does. There are also plenty of people fed up with the government and would like to see someone get elected that would actually fix some things about this country....only people never get to see what anyone like that has to say because those parties are shut out by the media. Groups like Libertarians and the Greens have good ideas and a lot of things they'd like to talk about and should be talked about....only the things they care about aren't exactly what a corporate ran media wants everyone hearing.

And until more people read and watch independent media, along with thinking for themselves, they will continue to eat up whatever the corporate run mainstream media will tell them too. I believe that this is truly becoming an epidemic in this country.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The media should cover groups that have at least some strong support and the Greens have plenty of it. They just don't have the big bucks from the rich people wanting to keep their buddies in office. They don't stand a chance because they get no coverage, not in spite of it. How hard is that to understand? How are people supposed to care about someone they haven't even heard of yet? That makes no sense at all.
The country doesn't lean conservative, the voting population does. There are also plenty of people fed up with the government and would like to see someone get elected that would actually fix some things about this country....only people never get to see what anyone like that has to say because those parties are shut out by the media. Groups like Libertarians and the Greens have good ideas and a lot of things they'd like to talk about and should be talked about....only the things they care about aren't exactly what a corporate ran media wants everyone hearing.

Why is it so hard to understand that these groups are part of the fringe and the media then does not cover them frequently? It is an example of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Are these groups not covered because of their ideas, or because they haven't been covered before? It's not like the Green Party is new. They've been around for a while. They haven't had a great impact. It is not the media's fault. Eventually public opinion will turn and want that 3rd party candidate, but until now it hasn't.

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

Why is it so hard to understand that these groups are part of the fringe and the media then does not cover them frequently? It is an example of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Are these groups not covered because of their ideas, or because they haven't been covered before? It's not like the Green Party is new. They've been around for a while. They haven't had a great impact. It is not the media's fault. Eventually public opinion will turn and want that 3rd party candidate, but until now it hasn't.

How can people care about something or someone they've never heard about?

norm

bootlegger10 wrote:

Why is it so hard to understand that these groups are part of the fringe and the media then does not cover them frequently? It is an example of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Are these groups not covered because of their ideas, or because they haven't been covered before? It's not like the Green Party is new. They've been around for a while. They haven't had a great impact. It is not the media's fault. Eventually public opinion will turn and want that 3rd party candidate, but until now it hasn't.

I think you'd be surprised how many people would vote for a 3rd party if 1) they knew about them and 2) if their votes actually counted when voting for someone other than R or D. We need to institute this. I believe if people would be more willing to vote outside the norm if they knew their vote counted.

mammasan

bootlegger10 wrote:

Another reason is that the country leans conservative (evidenced by GW winning in 2004, and with all the shit that is going down the Dems just barely took over the Senate).

I think this is statement is pretty baseless. I think the majority of this country stands firmly in the middle. GW won in 2004 because Kerry was a down right horrible candidate. The reason the Greens do not get support is because they do not get any coverage. Same goes for Libertarians. The Reps and Dems have monopolized the electoral process in this country to the point where it is damn nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to get any where. Election are no longer won but bought. If people actually voted on the issues and on track record instead of the face they see on TV the most we wouldn't have a Dem or Rep left in Congress or in the White House.

kenny olav

I understand why this discussion turned into a debate on whether or not the Greens are electable, but all I really wanted to point out was their very good arguement as to why the Democrats, or at least the leadership of the Democratic Party, are not really against this war.

I would love to see the Greens, as well as the Libertarians, Reform Party, Natural Law Party, Constitution Party and other minor parties join together to form some kind of coalition party that would run candidates at the Federal level, as all of these parties share common ground on one thing: calling bullshit on the war in Iraq and on the handling of the "war on terrorism". In fact, I'm sure they can find common ground on a number of foreign policy issues, and on the reformation of how our Federal government works. If they were smart, this would be the #1 goal of all these parties, because otherwise they will just continue to be little seen and little heard from.

MrBrian

Kenny Olav wrote:

I understand why this discussion turned into a debate on whether or not the Greens are electable, but all I really wanted to point out was their very good arguement as to why the Democrats, or at least the leadership of the Democratic Party, are not really against this war.

I would love to see the Greens, as well as the Libertarians, Reform Party, Natural Law Party, Constitution Party and other minor parties join together to form some kind of coalition party that would run candidates at the Federal level, as all of these parties share common ground on one thing: calling bullshit on the war in Iraq and on the handling of the "war on terrorism". In fact, I'm sure they can find common ground on a number of foreign policy issues, and on the reformation of how our Federal government works. If they were smart, this would be the #1 goal of all these parties, because otherwise they will just continue to be little seen and little heard from.

You think they should join together? (all the smaller parties)

El_Kabong

bootlegger10 wrote:

I have not said anything about the Green's parties views or whether or not they are deserving of coverage.

then what did you mean by this???

"What makes the Green Party newsworthy? I'm not try to be an asshole like I usually am, but I wonder why the national media should cover the green party? Is a green party candidate going to win in 2008? No. 2012? No. 2016? No. It makes sense to me that media do not cover them. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but it makes sense."

bootlegger10 wrote:

I am merely pointing out that the general public does not care about the Green Party, and yes, you are correct that one reason is that they do not get news coverage. Another reason is that the country leans conservative (evidenced by GW winning in 2004, and with all the shit that is going down the Dems just barely took over the Senate). So of course the Green Party is not going to be the big newsmaker. If Democrats have to lean to the center to be electable in this country, you think the Green Party is going to do well? This is why the media does not cover them, because they are too far left to make a difference.

It sounds like you don't like the media's agenda, unless that agenda is pushing fringe political groups that you like. If the media did a story about the leader of the Green Party, people would think "Who is this? Oh yeah, someone who has no bearing on any political outcome in this country." And then they would think, "The media should spend hours a day on this guy. Enough with all of this news related to 98% of our political representatives." Well, maybe not that.

It just seems you want the media to start covering things for the heck of it. Every fringe political group deserves its day I guess.

if less than 1/2 of the population votes and less than roughly 1/2 of that picks the president...doesn't that mean our president is picked by less than 1/4 of our population? wouldn't 20 or so % picking the leader for the other 80% be considered 'fringe'?

bootlegger10

El_Kabong wrote:

then what did you mean by this???

"What makes the Green Party newsworthy? I'm not try to be an asshole like I usually am, but I wonder why the national media should cover the green party? Is a green party candidate going to win in 2008? No. 2012? No. 2016? No. It makes sense to me that media do not cover them. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but it makes sense."

I did contradict myself there. I guess what I was trying to get at was sort of a "no offense to the Green Party's views, but..." comment.

El_Kabong wrote:

if less than 1/2 of the population votes and less than roughly 1/2 of that picks the president...doesn't that mean our president is picked by less than 1/4 of our population? wouldn't 20 or so % picking the leader for the other 80% be considered 'fringe'?

That is reaching.