Media Manipulation of the candidates - check this out

RolandTD20Kdrummer

http://www.youtube.com/v/nK7DRPyNAHA&

"In America, you are free to do what they tell you to do.

5 major corporations control our elections, and choose the candidates for president.

This time they are eliminating Mike Gravel. First they marginalized him, then they eliminated him from the Oct. 30 and Nov. 15 debates.

Why?
-He won't be owned by them.
-He speaks truth to power.
-He wants to bring power to us, the people, and take it from the small group that controls things now.

Take back your freedom, look at what Mike Gravel (Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich) have to offer.

Above all else, support someone you really believe in. Don't waste your vote on someone that was chosen for you."

bootlegger10

Every election has the weirdo candidates who are there only to show the extremes views (right or wrong). In a country full of moderates and independents, I think it would be tough for Gravel to be elected, which is why I think he was marginalized from the beginning. I really don't think the corporations had much to do with it. And I think the debate questions were not geared to him because he was such a long shot, not because of his views.

If corporations were actively shutting up candidates who had a shot (a McCain or Biden), then I think we should be worried. I think the debates are pretty pointless with 10 candidates or so. There are so many of them that they should interchange who gets into the debates. Maybe have four people at every debate.

bootlegger10

Sorry, double post.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I don't know what I find more disturbing. The fact that those who control the media discriminate and slant public perception, or the fact that no one seems to notice when it happens.

Yoyoyo

bootlegger10 wrote:

Every election has the weirdo candidates who are there only to show the extremes views (right or wrong). In a country full of moderates and independents, I think it would be tough for Gravel to be elected, which is why I think he was marginalized from the beginning. I really don't think the corporations had much to do with it. And I think the debate questions were not geared to him because he was such a long shot, not because of his views.

If corporations were actively shutting up candidates who had a shot (a McCain or Biden), then I think we should be worried. I think the debates are pretty pointless with 10 candidates or so. There are so many of them that they should interchange who gets into the debates. Maybe have four people at every debate.

A country full of moderates? You are wacko and kookoo if you think that is true. Go back to looney town.

Bu2

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I don't know what I find more disturbing. The fact that those who control the media discriminate and slant public perception, or the fact that no one seems to notice when it happens.

That's what bothers me.

I look at what matters most to me in a candidate, and I find Kucinich and Gravel represent my views the most.

But they don't have the backing and support to get their message across, and so we end up with Clinton/Obama/Edwards......Richardson/Biden, and then Kucinich as our most viable candidates.

And yes, it sucks that they are our most viable candidates in that order, but it's up to their supporters to get them ahead into the mainstream, and so far only three Dem candidates have been able to get into the mainstream.

We can't change America overnight. But Ross Perot and Ralph Nader certainly helped change the way a small and knowledgeable part of America thinks.

If you all back Kucinich the way you talk....walk the talk. If it's too late, then go for the mainstream candidate you'll take as a second choice.

It ain't going to happen overnight. But America CAN and will change her way of thinking. Let's start with a change this year from Republican to Democrat, and then keep building our progressive move for change while under that Democratic president's mantel.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

need to change the election process to an instant runoff before fringe candidates could be heard. Dont see that ever happening.

Commy

MrSmith wrote:

need to change the election process to an instant runoff before fringe candidates could be heard. Dont see that ever happening.

Or with congress and the senate they should have more of a representative system-if greens get 5% of the national vote they should have 5 representatives for every 100 seats.

bootlegger10

Mestophar wrote:

A country full of moderates? You are wacko and kookoo if you think that is true. Go back to looney town.

And if you think Kucinich ever had a chance than you can go to looney town. Why do you think he has no chance? He is on the fringe, and if the country wasn't fully of moderates, than he would have a chance. But, he has no chance because the moderates would never vote for him.

Why does Hilary stay away from straight answers? Because she is playing to moderates.

DriftingByTheStorm

bootlegger10 wrote:

Why does Hilary stay away from straight answers? Because she is playing to moderates.

And polls show that she is doing an increasingly poor job of such pandering.

I predict that the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries will probably spell huge trouble for both Hillary and Rudy ...

and will probably do a great deal to bolster support for Obama and Ron Paul [regardless of if you consider him "marginal" or not].