Do We Have Any Bernie Sanders Supporters Among Us?

[Deranged Rhino]

Yeah the topic of alien conspiraces does devolve quickly into the realm of batschitt crazy conspiracy theories

 

My own opinion is that there is intelligent life beyond Earth (tho I do have my doubts about intelligent life on Earth). But intelligent life is like Christmas tree lights. The light comes and goes at different spots in the Universe but not close enough where they will interact another before going out

 

I think that's as valid a theory as any. I mean, I have my own opinions on that subject (which are probably tamer than you'd imagine) but I freely admit they're speculative and (mostly) without any hard evidence.

 

 

I finally get it. You believe that it's all one big show. No one matters.

 

Campaigns with money ( they don't have the REAL money)

Media (controlled by the the real money holders)

Party (doing what the money tells them.)

People ( not relevant)

The two party system, the bickering, it's just a ploy to coverup the people really in charge.

 

While I'm looking at the circle of influence, I'm forgetting about the man holding it. (and yes, it's a MAN.)

I'm going to agree. Has to be aliens. Aliens with big BALLS.

 

It's still not an accurate assessment of my position, but you're getting somewhat closer.

[OCinBuffalo]

The simple fact that GreggyT exists...increases the probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists...geometrically.

The simple fact that GreggyT exists...increases the probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists...geometrically.

Um, gee, OC, I believe that this same equation can be used to explain why Trump not only isn't dead, but is leading in the polls.

 

Um, yes, OC, you are of course right, but...not in a way anyone can understand at 3 in the morning.

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Chef Jim]

The simple fact that GreggyT exists...increases the probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists...geometrically.

 

Um, gee, OC, I believe that this same equation can be used to explain why Trump not only isn't dead, but is leading in the polls.

 

Um, yes, OC, you are of course right, but...not in a way anyone can understand at 3 in the morning.

 

Ok you're a schizophrenic nut job that talks to himself. It's all making sense now.

[B-Man]

Don't fall for it Bernie !

 

 

Hillary wants Bernie debate on George Stephanopoulos’ Good Morning America

 

This is rich.

 

Republicans understandably have an issue with George Stephanopoulos after the debacle of the 2012 Republican presidential debate, when he prepped the landscape for the Obama “War on Women” campaign theme:

 

After Stephanopoulos failed to disclose his contributions to the Clinton Foundation while he was excoriating the author of Clinton Cash, Stephanopoulos was removed by ABC News from its list of Republican debate moderators.

 

But what about moderating a Democratic debate?

 

Apparently Hillary wants Stephanopoulos to moderate one of the remaining Democratic debates on his Good Morning America show. Keith Koffler reports:

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

A UNITER, NOT A DIVIDER!

 

In Wisconsin, Bernie Will Make It Six Straight Wins.

 

 

 

 

 

Sanders agrees to April 14 NY debate, pumps up the sarcasm.

 

 

[GG]

Incorrect. Citizen United made it so there's no legal difference between a 100 dollar donation and a 100,000 dollar donation. If you think that ruling hasn't impacted this election cycle then you're not paying attention.

 

And there shouldn't be a difference in the value of exercising free speech.

 

You and I must be looking at the different elections, because the big campaigns funded by large PACs are not in the picture anymore. You can't use Hillary as your example because she's fully backed by the party and that's why the money is flocking to her. And still with all that cash, she hasn't put Bernie away.

[Deranged Rhino]

And there shouldn't be a difference in the value of exercising free speech.

 

You and I must be looking at the different elections, because the big campaigns funded by large PACs are not in the picture anymore. You can't use Hillary as your example because she's fully backed by the party and that's why the money is flocking to her. And still with all that cash, she hasn't put Bernie away.

 

But there is a difference, a real world difference, between $1,000 and $100,000 and its ability to corrupt the political process. Even unintentionally, just by virtue of the way the current system works. The amount of money candidates need to raise, let alone elected officials, is absurd by any measure -- something both sides actually agree on. Citizen's United didn't create that issue, I'm not arguing that it did; merely that it just exasperated an existing problem which is letting the interests of the few monopolize the process.

[GG]

But there is a difference, a real world difference, between $1,000 and $100,000 and its ability to corrupt the political process. Even unintentionally, just by virtue of the way the current system works. The amount of money candidates need to raise, let alone elected officials, is absurd by any measure -- something both sides actually agree on. Citizen's United didn't create that issue, I'm not arguing that it did; merely that it just exasperated an existing problem which is letting the interests of the few monopolize the process.

 

You have a very native outlook on the process and the only thing you're fixated on its the dollar sum without regard to the constitutional protection of free speech that has absolutely nothing to do with placing monetary limits on free speech. You also ignore the sheer cost and logistics that are needed to run a national campaign. Do you expect airtime to be free? Do you expect people to only volunteer for reverie candidates? How would you police the volunteers to make sure money isn't paid on the side?

 

If anything Citizens Untied only went part of the way. Eliminated all campaign contribution limits, but disclose every penny and every donor.

[3rdnlng]

 

But there is a difference, a real world difference, between $1,000 and $100,000 and its ability to corrupt the political process. Even unintentionally, just by virtue of the way the current system works. The amount of money candidates need to raise, let alone elected officials, is absurd by any measure -- something both sides actually agree on. Citizen's United didn't create that issue, I'm not arguing that it did; merely that it just exasperated an existing problem which is letting the interests of the few monopolize the process.

Meanwhile Bernie Sander's contributions average $30.

[Deranged Rhino]

You have a very native outlook on the process and the only thing you're fixated on its the dollar sum without regard to the constitutional protection of free speech that has absolutely nothing to do with placing monetary limits on free speech. You also ignore the sheer cost and logistics that are needed to run a national campaign. Do you expect airtime to be free? Do you expect people to only volunteer for reverie candidates? How would you police the volunteers to make sure money isn't paid on the side?

 

If anything Citizens Untied only went part of the way. Eliminated all campaign contribution limits, but disclose every penny and every donor.

 

I do think air time should be free for political ads. The people own the airwaves, they're a public utility, eliminating the need for candidates to raise ridiculous sums of money just to get their message out there would go a long ways towards eliminating unwanted influence.

 

And I'm fixated on the dollar sum because it best illustrates the sheer lunacy of the concept. Money is not speech, speech is not money -- at least not unless we just want to be open about the fact we're living in an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic.

 

You're not going to eliminate money from politics in this country, but you certainly can take steps to minimize the temptations. Which is why I agree with you on the bolded.

 

Meanwhile Bernie Sander's contributions average $30.

 

Hence his popularity.

 

But he's not going to win.

[GG]

 

I do think air time should be free for political ads. The people own the airwaves, they're a public utility, eliminating the need for candidates to raise ridiculous sums of money just to get their message out there would go a long ways towards eliminating unwanted influence.

 

And I'm fixated on the dollar sum because it best illustrates the sheer lunacy of the concept. Money is not speech, speech is not money -- at least not unless we just want to be open about the fact we're living in an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic.

 

You're not going to eliminate money from politics in this country, but you certainly can take steps to minimize the temptations. Which is why I agree with you on the bolded.

 

 

Hence his popularity.

 

But he's not going to win.

The public own the airwaves, but they don't pay the billions needed to actuary broadcast the stuff over the air.

 

If you want free publicity, walk around outside with a sign.

 

Ps Bernie is going to lose because the party wants him to lose, not because he can't keep up with the spending or public attention.

 

That's a distinction you still fall to grasp.

Edited April 5, 2016 by GG

[Deranged Rhino]

The public own the airwaves, but they don't pay the billions needed to actuary broadcast the stuff over the air.

 

If you want free publicity, walk around outside with a sign

 

Disagree, it should be a constitutional amendment. There's never been a better time for broadcast networks to get behind that kind of movement; it would cost them nothing (because they're dying) while making them extremely relevant in an age where they're desperately searching for a way to remain relevant.

[bbb]

 

Disagree, it should be a constitutional amendment. There's never been a better time for broadcast networks to get behind that kind of movement; it would cost them nothing (because they're dying) while making them extremely relevant in an age where they're desperately searching for a way to remain relevant.

 

People are going to watch the broadcast networks for the political commercials?

[GG]

 

Disagree, it should be a constitutional amendment. There's never been a better time for broadcast networks to get behind that kind of movement; it would cost them nothing (because they're dying) while making them extremely relevant in an age where they're desperately searching for a way to remain relevant.

 

Do you even understand the economics of the business that pays you?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Do you even understand the economics of the business that pays you?

 

I do. Quite well actually. I know enough to point out it's dying a loud and painful death and networks especially are desperate for a way to remain relevant in the streaming world. Do you know how much money Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS burn every pilot season on shows they KNOW won't have a prayer of being picked up for a full season? Literally you could take that $50-100 million dollars (a low estimate), set it on fire in the middle of Burbank, and it'd be more fiscally responsible than the way networks are spending their money today.

 

Supporting a constitutional amendment such as this would pay for itself tenfold by returning broadcast networks to a position of importance in exchange for, what? A couple hundred hours of free programming a year? It'd be a massive win for networks. It'd be a massive win for affiliates. It'd be a massive win for their customers and our political system as a whole.

[GG]

 

I do. Quite well actually. I know enough to point out it's dying a loud and painful death and networks especially are desperate for a way to remain relevant in the streaming world. Do you know how much money Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS burn every pilot season on shows they KNOW won't have a prayer of being picked up for a full season? Literally you could take that $50-100 million dollars (a low estimate), set it on fire in the middle of Burbank, and it'd be more fiscally responsible than the way networks are spending their money today.

 

Supporting a constitutional amendment such as this would pay for itself tenfold by returning broadcast networks to a position of importance in exchange for, what? A couple hundred hours of free programming a year? It'd be a massive win for networks. It'd be a massive win for affiliates. It'd be a massive win for their customers and our political system as a whole.

 

This answer is definitive proof that you do not understand the economics of your business.

 

How would that amendment even be constitutional, since it would be violating the Takings Clause? How will that amendment be constitutional since it would provide for unequal treatment of airtime for broadcast vs cable networks? How would you regulate which candidates get equal air time and preferential time slots?

 

The unintended consequences of your proposal are huge and run counter to the fabric of an open society. You are advocating a system that's a favorite in repressive regimes that stifle free expression through their control of the media. Your only argument against the current system is that it costs a lot of money. So what? A lot of things cost a lot of money. Freedom isn't free.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

This answer is definitive proof that you do not understand the economics of your business.

 

How would that amendment even be constitutional, since it would be violating the Takings Clause? How will that amendment be constitutional since it would provide for unequal treatment of airtime for broadcast vs cable networks? How would you regulate which candidates get equal air time and preferential time slots?

 

The unintended consequences of your proposal are huge and run counter to the fabric of an open society. You are advocating a system that's a favorite in repressive regimes that stifle free expression through their control of the media. Your only argument against the current system is that it costs a lot of money. So what? A lot of things cost a lot of money. Freedom isn't free.

 

Your first sentence is incorrect. Easy to say, especially without offering anything to back it up, but it's still factually inaccurate. You're underestimating just how much money is wasted, literally burned, every year by networks who are desperate to create content that will draw eyeballs. Networks and their affiliates are fighting a losing battle against cable and streaming, more pilots won't change that. Important programming will, and it's hard to get more important than having open and honest discussions about the candidates running for elected office.

 

...And, you can still sell ads during the time you set aside for political discussions/advertisements -- just not political ads -- so it wouldn't upset their revenue streams. So, from the network's perspective, there's no downside.

 

For the record, my argument is not that it costs a lot of money to run for office. My argument is that we shouldn't be making it easier for the amount of money in the system to corrupt those in office. Forcing US Senators to have to raise 14k a day (for either their campaigns or their party) isn't democracy. It's not even capitalism. It's just legalized bribery.

 

The people own the airwaves, giving them back a piece of it for the betterment of the republic is one way to reduce the amount of money needed to run/stay in office. I've never said you're going to get all the money out of the system, but we better find ways to reduce its ability to unjustly influence the way our government operates. What we're talking about is just one step, but an important one that can help stem the tide of corruption that's stagnated our system of government.

[GG]

 

Your first sentence is incorrect. Easy to say, especially without offering anything to back it up, but it's still factually inaccurate. You're underestimating just how much money is wasted, literally burned, every year by networks who are desperate to create content that will draw eyeballs. Networks and their affiliates are fighting a losing battle against cable and streaming, more pilots won't change that. Important programming will, and it's hard to get more important than having open and honest discussions about the candidates running for elected office.

 

...And, you can still sell ads during the time you set aside for political discussions/advertisements -- just not political ads -- so it wouldn't upset their revenue streams. So, from the network's perspective, there's no downside.

 

For the record, my argument is not that it costs a lot of money to run for office. My argument is that we shouldn't be making it easier for the amount of money in the system to corrupt those in office. Forcing US Senators to have to raise 14k a day (for either their campaigns or their party) isn't democracy. It's not even capitalism. It's just legalized bribery.

 

The people own the airwaves, giving them back a piece of it for the betterment of the republic is one way to reduce the amount of money needed to run/stay in office. I've never said you're going to get all the money out of the system, but we better find ways to reduce its ability to unjustly influence the way our government operates. What we're talking about is just one step, but an important one that can help stem the tide of corruption that's stagnated our system of government.

 

What do the pilots have to do with the revenue model and viewership?

 

You still don't get the main issue that by mandating political advertising on broadcast TV you would be taking away their programming slots or advertising dollars. But you wouldn't be doing that with cable networks, which combined, have a greater audience than broadcast TV.

 

You haven't addressed the serious issues that will come up on how to allocate the candidate times and when these programs will run. Why do you think Bernie turned down Hillary's offer to debate during the NCAA finals?

 

You don't even recognize that your proposal would lead to much greater ills because you will put a government bureaucrat in charge of political advertising. Yeah, that's a very good way to eliminate influence peddling.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I do. Quite well actually. I know enough to point out it's dying a loud and painful death and networks especially are desperate for a way to remain relevant in the streaming world. Do you know how much money Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS burn every pilot season on shows they KNOW won't have a prayer of being picked up for a full season? Literally you could take that $50-100 million dollars (a low estimate), set it on fire in the middle of Burbank, and it'd be more fiscally responsible than the way networks are spending their money today.

 

Supporting a constitutional amendment such as this would pay for itself tenfold by returning broadcast networks to a position of importance in exchange for, what? A couple hundred hours of free programming a year? It'd be a massive win for networks. It'd be a massive win for affiliates. It'd be a massive win for their customers and our political system as a whole.

Who gets these free political adds? Only major parties? Political action committees? National interest groups? Private non-associated individuals seeking to promote their view point?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

What do the pilots have to do with the revenue model and viewership?

 

 

EVERYTHING since pilots are the networks sole way of bringing in new revenue and viewers. We're talking about 100s of millions of dollars wasted every other quarter, all in an effort to find one or two new shows that might draw viewers and advertising dollars. There's massive waste within the development and production departments of every major network, just by virtue of relying upon the pilot system.

 

Networks, on average, produce 10-15 new pilots every year, each one with upwards of to $15 to 20, sometimes over 50, million dollars in production and development costs. They do so knowing that at BEST two of those 10 - 15 shows will get picked up, meaning they're knowingly wasting millions of dollars on shows that have no chance of ever making it to air, let alone series, let alone to bring in advertising dollars or new viewers. Pilots and new shows form the backbone of the network's upfront deals every spring wherein they parade their new shows (and existing ones) in front of advertisers.

 

The problem is, since 2007, networks are not only bleeding viewers, they're bleeding advertisers and yet their model hasn't changed. They're still making 10-15 new pilots every year, flushing millions down the toilet for literally no return in viewers or revenue. I cannot tell you how many meetings I've sat in, with heads of networks, lamenting this flawed business model. They can't compete with the budgets or freedoms of cable, they pay artists more than cable and streaming but even with higher paychecks, less and less creative talent is being funneled into the network system -- meaning their product is suffering despite paying more for it.

 

Cable, streaming, and cord cutting services aren't going away. The NFL is the only thing the networks can rely on as far as viewership and advertising dollars, and even that could be going away in future contract talks (don't think today's twitter deal isn't causing some heart palpitations in network offices this morning). If networks were to get behind this kind of idea, they would essentially cut their pilot orders in half -- even more in the case of NBC and FOX -- which would give them 100s of millions to put into this kind of free political programming. In return, rather than ending up with 10 pilots no one ever sees, they get hundreds of hours of important programming they can still sell the same way they sell their pilots.

 

It's actually a much more fiscally sound plan than their current business model.

 

 

 

You still don't get the main issue that by mandating political advertising on broadcast TV you would be taking away their programming slots or advertising dollars. But you wouldn't be doing that with cable networks, which combined, have a greater audience than broadcast TV.

 

 

I do get that issue. You're not understanding that networks are DYING to fill their programming slots with programs that actually draw viewers. There's always room in the schedule for shows that draw an audience. This wouldn't cost them anything in advertising dollars, as we're not talking about year round coverage. It would be limited to a month or two a year, there's zero reason to have an 18 month long election cycle other than to make more money for the political industry as a whole.

 

The simple fact that cable and streaming services are drawing more viewers is precisely why networks should get behind this. More new pilots won't bring viewers back. If they want to save their business, networks need to get creative. If candidates wish to spend campaign dollars to buy ads on cable and streaming they'd be welcome to do so. No one is advocating limiting candidate's abilities to campaign, merely we're giving them a viable, free, source of advertising that would help lessen the temptation or the need to sell out.

 

This would grow networks' audiences by leaps and bounds during the political season and, over time, reduce the amount of unnecessary money in the political system.

 

 

You haven't addressed the serious issues that will come up on how to allocate the candidate times and when these programs will run. Why do you think Bernie turned down Hillary's offer to debate during the NCAA finals?

 

 

I'm not saying there won't be details to work out, nor am I saying I have all the answers to those issues, but it's foolish to throw your hands up and not even try because of the perceived difficulties. That's just lazy and apathetic.

 

 

 

You don't even recognize that your proposal would lead to much greater ills because you will put a government bureaucrat in charge of political advertising. Yeah, that's a very good way to eliminate influence peddling.

 

I'm not sure how you're getting that from what I'm proposing. This would clearly require new legislation and oversight by the FEC, but the networks themselves would be running the day to day.

 

 

Who gets these free political adds? Only major parties? Political action committees? National interest groups? Private non-associated individuals seeking to promote their view point?

 

Don't know. I'd be open to discussing all aspects of how best to handle it. This system would be reserved for actual candidates running for office, not just folks who want to finance political ads about issues. Focus on the candidates and their platforms, meaning at the bare minimum the candidates would have to be on a ballot to take advantage of the free airtime.

 

The thing with this kind of set up, political parties themselves would become far less vital. Elected officials in districts where they're not facing any serious challengers still have to raise money for their party to support other candidates who are facing real threats. This would eliminate a lot of that kind of nonsense. It would allow third party candidates more of a platform, which is for the best imo.