Seems like the media and the two major party machines are in cahoots.

Yes. They are.

Well, who pays the media bills?

---

Seems like the media and the two major party machines are in cahoots.

Yes. They are.

Well, who pays the media bills?

The commercial sponsors want their ads run to big audiences, so they pay the price, but major news media today are so intertwined with entertainment companies, they can be manipulated too easily by politicians in power.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Seems like the media and the two major party machines are in cahoots.

Yes. They are.

Well, who pays the media bills?

The commercial sponsors want their ads run to big audiences, so they pay the price, but major news media today are so intertwined with entertainment companies, they can be manipulated too easily by politicians in power.

You mean their donors, the true ruling class.
As one of the donors, Donny cannot be accepted as an outsider.
It's replacing the puppets with a puppet master.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

An interesting analysis.

"Trump vs Clinton, RIGGED FIRST DEBATE?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms0JGQaVCDE

Of course the "debates" are rigged...


1. They are not real Debates. (see Lincoln Douglas debates).
2. They are more like joint competitive press conferences.

3. They have rules restricting (usually by popularity in polls) eligability to participate.
4. Popularity in polls depends on exposure to the public in events such as the 'debates'.

therefore:

5. The debates exist to help perpetuate the electoral dominance of the two 'major' parties. Much ado signifying nothing.

Proposed solution: Using the Traditional Case Structure of the Lincoln-Douglas Debate format, hold a number of multi-day tournaments (each one on a different Case subject). Participants would be everyone that has qualified to be on the Presidential Ballot in at least one State.

We would at least get an idea of the mental capacity of each candidate as they have to argue both sides of the case as the rounds progress.

This solution might maybe make the Debates mean something. Now? The 'debates' are total crap.

1+ Well said. ;^)

---

...

The commercial sponsors want their ads run to big audiences, so they pay the price, but major news media today are so intertwined with entertainment companies, they can be manipulated too easily by politicians in power.

What major news media? There are only entertainment companies. Don't forget that!

---

Let's see if I understand this correctly..

Big Business and huge corporations pay the entertainment/news companies to advertise and create an image for them.
Big Business and huge corporations pay the politicians (with campaign donations) to promote their interests and lobby, er...(intice, threaten, bribe with promisses) and otherwise influence the bureaucrats and lawmakers.
Politicians depend on both the entertainment/news companies and Big Business for their very existance.
The entertainment/news industry depend on both the Big Business for advertising dollars and the politicians to create "news" and entertainment for them and a continuation of the laws supporting the cash flow.

I'm having trouble drawing distinction or seperation between Big Business, entertainment/news and the politicians.

Am I the only one who thinks there is a problem here?
What happened to politicians working for the people?
What happened to news being distinctly seperate from entertainment?
I think a few thing need fixing here,
... or am I missing something?

You forgot to mention Citizens United!

---

You forgot to mention Citizens United!

SCOTUS, (US supreme court), has become a collection of lifetime political devotees that are appointed to their post after spending their career running for office in mostly judicial positions.

In 2009 - 2010 Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in reference to creating a movie about the Clintons and whether or not it was subject to "application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act."

In their decision, the SCOTUS literally tore up the 1st ammendment and with a wink and a nod, made it possible to continue corporations ability to contribute vast sums of cash to a candidate through PACs (Political Action Committee), rather than directly.
The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.
Hence, Corporations are people too, with full first ammendment rights.
(Do corporations have the same rights as the citizens? 2nd ammendment? 5th ammendment?)
In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized that the Court handles constitutional issues as it attempts to "avoid constitutional issues when at all possible".
Wait, what??? I thought that's what they were supposed to do; or am I not understanding the judicial DoubleSpeak?
The american people thought that they had ruled to limit corporations influence on political campaigns. Instead the effect was to throw open the restraints, (except for reporting requirements), on unions and corporations contributeing to PACs dontating all or part to a single political campaign.

This has enabled Clinton, et.al. to create HUGE war chests to blanket the airwaves and media with slanted disinformation. This money feeds the news/entertainment industry and furthers the nefarious activity of the Debate
Commission to sustain the Republicrats and Demopublicans in their single domination of american politics.

The media and politicians answer to the Big Businees Boys.

You forgot to mention Citizens United!

SCOTUS, (US supreme court), has become a collection of lifetime political devotees that are appointed to their post after spending their career running for office in mostly judicial positions.

In 2009 - 2010 Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in reference to creating a movie about the Clintons and whether or not it was subject to "application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act."

In their decision, the SCOTUS literally tore up the 1st ammendment and with a wink and a nod, made it possible to continue corporations ability to contribute vast sums of cash to a candidate through PACs (Political Action Committee), rather than directly.
The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.
Hence, Corporations are people too, with full first ammendment rights.
(Do corporations have the same rights as the citizens? 2nd ammendment? 5th ammendment?)
In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized that the Court handles constitutional issues as it attempts to "avoid constitutional issues when at all possible".
Wait, what??? I thought that's what they were supposed to do; or am I not understanding the judicial DoubleSpeak?
The american people thought that they had ruled to limit corporations influence on political campaigns. Instead the effect was to throw open the restraints, (except for reporting requirements), on unions and corporations contributeing to PACs dontating all or part to a single political campaign.

I have never heard it said that many US citizens thought it was a restraint.

This has enabled Clinton, et.al. to create HUGE war chests to blanket the airwaves and media with slanted disinformation. This money feeds the news/entertainment industry and furthers the nefarious activity of the Debate
Commission to sustain the Republicrats and Demopublicans in their single domination of american politics.

Something you seem to have overlooked, though it doesn't make it much better.
Citizens United did it because of Clinton's campaign in 2008. They were anti-Hillary most of all. What does that tell you about those in Citizens United and those on the SCOTUS that allowed it through?
No use crying over the spilled milk that it was anti-Hillary and she now takes advantage of it.

P.S.-to all libertarians ... small government sounds nice, but do you really believe small government can fight all these fat cats? Do you say, on a similar issue, that with what Wells Fargo did in recent years, the ONLY protection is just the individual being more vigilant???

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

... Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in reference to creating a movie about the Clintons...

The american people thought that they had ruled to limit corporations influence on political campaigns. Instead the effect was to throw open the restraints, (except for reporting requirements), on unions and corporations contributeing to PACs dontating all or part to a single political campaign.

I have never heard it said that many US citizens thought it was a restraint.

My memory is that the decision was hailed by the news media as a limiter of influence because creators of films like this one would have to fully disclose their funding sorce and otherwise comply with BCRA rules.

This has enabled Clinton, et.al. to create HUGE war chests to blanket the airwaves and media...

Something you seem to have overlooked, though it doesn't make it much better.
Citizens United did it because of Clinton's campaign in 2008. They were anti-Hillary most of all. What does that tell you about those in Citizens United and those on the SCOTUS that allowed it through?
No use crying over the spilled milk that it was anti-Hillary and she now takes advantage of it.

P.S.-to all libertarians ... small government sounds nice, but do you really believe small government can fight all these fat cats? Do you say, on a similar issue, that with what Wells Fargo did in recent years, the ONLY protection is just the individual being more vigilant???

Uhm no, I did not forget the original request for injunction brought by John McCain in 2008 in District Court that eventually went to the Supreme Court. I just didn't mention it for brevity. Yes, also well aware of the origins of CU.

Small government isn't going to happen over night. I would take decades of concerted effort to carefully take apart the huge mess that has become the governmental behemouth. I think there are is a difference between Libertarian ideals and the kind of libertarian improvements that are possible over time.
Only anarchists want to dismantle all government. The goal of a less wastefull government are libertarian.

Debate commission: Trump had audio 'issues'

Washington (CNN)The Commission on Presidential Debates revealed in a one-sentence statement Friday that Donald Trump's audio was impacted earlier in the week.
"Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," the commission said in a statement. No other details were immediately made available.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/debate-commission-trump-had-audio-issues/index.html

---

P.S.-to all libertarians ... small government sounds nice, but do you really believe small government can fight all these fat cats? Do you say, on a similar issue, that with what Wells Fargo did in recent years, the ONLY protection is just the individual being more vigilant???

Well, since the 'fat cats' exist primarily BECAUSE of big government, yes.

The price of freedom (and liberty) is eternal Vigilance.




Remember the Tytler cycle?

Apathy leads to Dependency.
Dependency leads back to Bondage.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

P.S.-to all libertarians ... small government sounds nice, but do you really believe small government can fight all these fat cats? Do you say, on a similar issue, that with what Wells Fargo did in recent years, the ONLY protection is just the individual being more vigilant???

Well, since the 'fat cats' exist primarily BECAUSE of big government, yes.

The price of freedom (and liberty) is eternal Vigilance.

Roughly speaking, prior to the Enlightenment, we were dealing with totalitarianism in the hands of a very few. I disagree with your assessment that they ONLY exist due to big gov't.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

P.S.-to all libertarians ... small government sounds nice, but do you really believe small government can fight all these fat cats? Do you say, on a similar issue, that with what Wells Fargo did in recent years, the ONLY protection is just the individual being more vigilant???

Well, since the 'fat cats' exist primarily BECAUSE of big government, yes.

The price of freedom (and liberty) is eternal Vigilance.

Roughly speaking, prior to the Enlightenment, we were dealing with totalitarianism in the hands of a very few. I disagree with your assessment that they ONLY exist due to big gov't.

I did not say 'only'... But still, big government is a huge enabling factor in the existance of large(r) numbers of fat cats.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

P.S.-to all libertarians ... small government sounds nice, but do you really believe small government can fight all these fat cats? Do you say, on a similar issue, that with what Wells Fargo did in recent years, the ONLY protection is just the individual being more vigilant???

Well, since the 'fat cats' exist primarily BECAUSE of big government, yes.

The price of freedom (and liberty) is eternal Vigilance.

Roughly speaking, prior to the Enlightenment, we were dealing with totalitarianism in the hands of a very few. I disagree with your assessment that they ONLY exist due to big gov't.

I did not say 'only'... But still, big government is a huge enabling factor in the existance of large(r) numbers of fat cats.

Fat cats ... do you mean the KING? Or the Barron? As you should realize there were many more of them back years ago as each city - castle - had one as the head.

---

Debate commission: Trump had audio 'issues'

Sorry Lynn but that's "obvious" int it , Trumps head is so far up his arse what else could you expect ;-)

---

Life is what you make of it :-)

When i'm good i'm very good , but when i'm bad i'm shi#eloads better ;-) In't I " buttercups " p.m.s.l at authoritie !!;-)

Debate commission: Trump had audio 'issues'

Sorry Lynn but that's "obvious" int it , Trumps head is so far up his arse what else could you expect ;-)

I agree with you, Mark.

---

P.S.-to all libertarians ... small government sounds nice, but do you really believe small government can fight all these fat cats? Do you say, on a similar issue, that with what Wells Fargo did in recent years, the ONLY protection is just the individual being more vigilant???

Well, since the 'fat cats' exist primarily BECAUSE of big government, yes.

The price of freedom (and liberty) is eternal Vigilance.

Roughly speaking, prior to the Enlightenment, we were dealing with totalitarianism in the hands of a very few. I disagree with your assessment that they ONLY exist due to big gov't.

I did not say 'only'... But still, big government is a huge enabling factor in the existance of large(r) numbers of fat cats.

Fat cats ... do you mean the KING? Or the Barron? As you should realize there were many more of them back years ago as each city - castle - had one as the head.

Each a small gov't for a small area.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Debate commission: Trump had audio 'issues'

Just going to Energize Trump Voter's to come out, and vote.

I'm watching the 1976 Ford/Carter debate, and suddenly Carter is having audio difficulties, too. Well, we all know how that election turned out. ;~)

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Debate commission: Trump had audio 'issues'

Just going to Energize Trump Voter's to come out, and vote.

I'm watching the 1976 Ford/Carter debate, and suddenly Carter is having audio difficulties, too. Well, we all know how that election turned out. ;~)

Yes but those audio difficulties made it out of the building.

---