Will Mainstream Media Point Out Paul Ryan's Lies?

Debates have become less and less important over the years. The main beneficiaries are the cast of post-debate spin doctors that line up to rave about their debaters performance.

The candidates and their campaign handlers have bastardized the debates to the degree that they are unwatchable. The candidates rarely if ever directly answer the question. The most extreme example was the 2008 performance by Sarah Palin. She was trained to simply recite the talking points and when even that simple instruction was beyond her she literally winked at the camera to those people the campaign handlers knew would support her no matter what she said or did.

The losers in this are those few people that watch the debate to learn about the candidates. This election, where a higher percentage of people have their minds set (than most elections), the debates will be even less important. I'll watch the Call of the Wildman in place of the debates... I am sure I will get the spun versions via the media, talk shows, and Internet anyway...

 

You will get 10 second sound bites. These short clips are what a lot of people use to "inform" themselves. That is a lot of the reason that American politics is in the crummy shape that it is in today. No real discussion of the issues and plans for solving problems. Just quips that will sound good in 10 seconds.

 

I gotta admit that I skipped through the RNC and only watched Eastwood and Chrities' performances (in their entirety) because of the "buzz" they received.

I don't rely on the soundbites. I treat them more as cliff notes.

I like watching the major debates though. Just to see how they interact.

 

You don't rely on the sound bites because you take the time to. You are in the minority of people. The more time goes by the less politically informed people are.

 

once old people realize ryan tried to take away their social security and medicare the election will be a landslide

 

I wouldn't say they are completely useless, I think these public appearances are very useful for the Soros', Adelsons, the Goldman Sachs and the Citigroups, the AIPACs and the Citizens Uniteds.

If you think about this in reverse - as in, rather than ask yourself why these guys don't debate honestly, ask yourself who benefits from what opposing candidates have consistently agreed to do.

For that audience (potential and current donors), the ability to artfully dodge issues in a way that generates the most favorable voter reaction (basically no reaction at all) is a critical skill. The ability to guide a debate in a certain direction is a critical skill. The ability to maintain credibility with the regular citizens despite not living up to promises - that's extremely critical. These are skills in full display.

It's not truly about the responses - Sarah Palin would give them anything they want. It's more about who will do what needs to be done with the most skill. Certainly, Obama is perhaps the all-time best at this, while his campaign strategy (which ironically last time won a MARKETERS AWARD) is exceptionally good at convincing the viewer to "buy" the product. I have a ton of experience weeding out the influence of money in governance structures so for me, it is crystal clear that this is not a problem of incompetence or disregard, rather this is a problem of misplaced interests.

But this is all stuff you know, my only confusion is how easily this is accepted, even passively mentioning it in discussions as a foregone conclusion. I guess it is kind of the case of becoming used to what you have, like people owning sports cars not seeing sports cars the way people who don't own sports cars see them.

 

Still beats the non-existent election process in the UAE by a landslide.

 

I think that's unlikely. Once old people realize that Ryan is only going to take away social security and medicare for future generations of old people, they'll say "screw it, I got mine" and vote however they were going to vote anyway.