Rick Warren & Chuck Todd Censoring Debate

[Dutchoven08]

Quite revealing that the Gay-marriage-fearing, Republican Rick Warren was invited by Obama to give his invocation for Obama's swearing in.

Paying the Piper.

[sol3dg3]

the two party system came as a result of not wanting too many political factions. read alexander hamilton. it reduces the effectiveness of democracy. now if we did allow third parties candidates, would we allow all of them? just the ones who can win? would there be enough time in the debates?

furthermore, the 3rd party candidates this year were more about themselves their own party. nader didnt even have a party. the candidates were trying to be president, not build a long lasting party system

[Dutchoven08]

sol3dg3: 300 million+ Americans and you feel that two parties offers a representative choice to vote for?

Are you high?

Every "Democratic" nation has a "FIELD" of parties to choose from. Here, we get Corporate Fascist 1 or Corp Fascist 2. Both Dem and Rep parties are fully detached from the people and represent the money.. that pours in from corp lobbyists.

So if you are totally happy with a field of 2 to rep the broad spectrum of thought, you might choose to live in China.

Are you 12?

[sol3dg3]

first of all, every government is different. for example, britain has other parties, but the only have two real major parties. the other parties are much smaller and have yet to become prime minister. they have seats but their electoral process works differently than ours. secondly, the reason why third parties have failed to grow is third parties themselves. they believe that you start from the top, focusing too much of the efforts on the presidential elections.

[sol3dg3]

they should really focus on building a lasting coalition. ron paul, who ran as liberterian in 1988, left the party after promising to help it grow and rejoined the republicans. after two impressive showings in 1992 and 1996, the reform party could not unite and became virtually irrelevant. ralph nader had an impressive campaign in 2000, but let it get to his head. he has not tried to build the green party meaningfully, and did not run with them in 2008. his previous running mate endorsed dems.

[sol3dg3]

are telling me she is an evil corporate fascist? third parites should focus on the local and state level, become successful, and build from there. there is real sense of liberterianism in this country, yet the libertarian party with its rigid ideology has yet to galvanize on any of that.

third parties have yet to prove themselves to the american people by a large margin, yet continue focusing on the presidential level. push polls wanted do it. you need elected officials.

[sol3dg3]

push poll wont do it i meant to say.

i am not defending the dems or the repubs because they have better positions or anything, but we should not allow any third party simple because they are a third party. they need to meet a certain requirement. other nations have other political parties not because the government demanded it, but the parties forced it.

[sol3dg3]

if i remember correctly, there was an attempt at a third party debate. i think two of them showed up. mind you this was online, but it shows their level of commitment. now if we were to elevate third parties into the main debates, that would be unfairly elevate them to a status they didn't earn.Are you alan keyes has the same right as nader to be on that stage? or baldwin? Do we allow only one third party candidate. the debates are already short on time for answers as it is.

[sol3dg3]

this sort of notion that the media needs to give equal screen time to every political party. the news is driven by a: supply and demand of what people want to hear, relevant things happening. neither of which third partie have done, or at least a wide scale. the can't be relevant because they rarely get elected in lower government. and there is not real demand for news for them, because they have yet to really do much.

[TheGiantRobot]

Well said, Dutch. Thanks for the video.

[GoCo77]

Todd and Warren look like clones!

[sol3dg3]

GO chuck todd!

[GoCo77]

You like being duped by the media?

[sol3dg3]

no i like chuck todd. his analysis is always very good. if you think kucinich had a chance if in the debate you are delusional.

[GoCo77]

Kucinich thinks. The others don't. It's just a debating contest like they learned at school. Kucinich and Ron Paul think about issues that really matter. The ones the media and political parties promote don't think, they just play games.

[sol3dg3]

gravel i think thought as well. these debates are largely superficial in how they are designed. why whine about something so arbitrary. kucinich lost because he could not get traction. end of story.

[GoCo77]

Kucinich and others could get traction if the media changed its culture from trading in trivia and 2-second soundbites to substance.

[sol3dg3]

kucinich would never get traction because he is too far left, about 5'7", and has the same amount of charisma as a pencil.

[GoCo77]

Yeah, it's all about charisma. Your pragmatic politics is the reason why we are being run by a nest of corrupt bankers and their political scum who are on the verge of plunging this country into a police state. Yeah, buddy, it's all about charisma.

[sol3dg3]

Let me explain to you that there is process, called primaries. In that, the candidate that the people like best wins. He doesn't need to be best. It's a democracy.

If this nation is being turned into a police state then: a) Why doesn't you boy kucinich stand up, he is in congress. b) why did he endorse obama. Kucinich couldnt raise money, and that is a huge part of politics in capitalistic society. If you look at Kucinich's record, he is a pol very much like the rest of them.

[GoCo77]

You're probably right at one level. Actually, I'd prefer Ron Paul to Kucinich, but I do like 'pols' who speak out. What I'm complaining about is the culture of trivialization of government into some sort of sports team play. You seem to know the team play very well. A large part of this trivialization has to do with media, of course.

[sol3dg3]

OK i got a question for ya. I don't get how people can be both ron paul and kucinich supporters. They differ on just about every social matter, from abortion to gay marriage, as well as on taxes, the size of government, etc. The only real thing they agree on is the war in Iraq.

[GoCo77]

Because both speak out against the prevailing mindset of the media psychological matrix. Both support liberty of the individual, but from different perspectives.

[sol3dg3]

Both have very different contrasting views of constitution that cannot be reconciled. Ron Paul wants to destroy every branch of government created after I think like 1980 (education, Commerce etc), abolish the income tax. Kucinich wants to increase funding to department of education etc, and raise the income tax on the rich. they're view of "individual liberty" is very different as well. ron paul takes a stance to abolish abortion, restrict gay marriage. kucinich is the opposite.

[Dutchoven08]

Correction

The politician that gets the most media exposure and that the "Delegates" pick most gets anointed Candidate

Kucinich won by a landslide numerous online polls after debates he was allowed in. Polls from CNN, ABC etc had him showing 45-60% popularity

One poll of an ABC debate, Kuc took 1st place

That night the poll was removed with a fresh poll

Next day Kuc. took 1st again, the poll was removed and never mentioned again

I have screen captures of these from ABC's site

Learning yet?

[sol3dg3]

and these polls were taken, what a year before the primaries. how many people actual watched these primaries? how many people watch msnbc for that matter. like i said although it is unfair he was not in the debate, politics is not fair. the best candidate does not always win. the delegates vote based on who won their area.

that still does not change the fact that kucinich sucked at fundraising. these debates are not end all of democracy. they are privelege. their effect is small if any.

[Dutchoven08]

Chuck Todd, as the "Decider" for MSNBC during the elections officially "Decided" to omit Kucinich from their final MSNBC debate... just before the debate and despite the fact that Kucinich met the polling criteria AND had been given an official invitation from MSNBC!

That's called coercion and Election Steering by a media figure.

Todd's been well rewarded with the job of heading all of NBC's political reporting and getting a choice slot in the White House Press Corps.

You've been duped, pal.

[sol3dg3]

Chuck Todd got his job because of his excellent analysis skills as well as MSNBC's rise in political news. He earned that job. He was Political Director before these events anyway.

You have been duped into over analyzing these debates as the end of all of democracy. Debates are privilege to have, they are not a guarantee. Neither is any candidates' presence in them. A candidate should be able to succeed with or without the debates. You also forget that Kucinich couldn't raise a dime.

[Dutchoven08]

So, as Kucinich raised his first million dollars without any of the support garnered by Edwards, Clinton and Obama from the DNC cash pile and key donors, you still think he "couldn't raise a dime"?

And you justify Kucinich's Exclusion from the MSNBC debate by Chuck Todd as being acceptable because debates are a "Privilege"?

How many drug companies advertise on MSNBC every day?

How do you guarantee neutrality for candidate coverage?

Are you high?Or are you Chuck Todd using an assumed web name?

[sol3dg3]

kucinich couldn't raise in comparison to the others. still did nothing for him in the long run. he didnt spend his money right.

he had plenty of negatives besides his charisma. he was pretty far to the left. had the most radical plan in terms of iraq next to gravel. stance on gay marriage. flip flop on abortion.

Chuck Todd has a right to do that. Its their debate.

neutral coverage is impossible.

nixon didn't even have debate during his second run.

[45564766]

Obama a socialist? I wish! What do you call it when Wall street keeps it's profits and sells it's losses to the taxpayer for 700 billion dollars? "Socialism for the rich!"

Does that make Bush a socialist? A rich man's socialist!

See you all at the ballot box, suckers!

[thegalactictruthcom]

I totally agree with your assessment!!

The music however - rotten horrible.

[kookiemoose]

chuck todd is a political jack-off

[sara5893]

I would love to hear ALL the candiates. Some I will think idots others I would totaly agree with. WTH is wrong with a complete day long debate? I am sick of being given crappy chooses. Obama is a socialist and Mccain is close behind him. So who is left for?

[stillthinking3]

I agree, we should have a debate for all of the independent party candidates and their followers...since they will all likely fit into a medium sized High School gym, it shouldn't really be too big of a logistical exercise.

Rick Warren and the Networks are simply approaching the situation from a pragmatic position. Wasting space on candidates that have zero chance of election (and I would include the addition of people like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich) does not make sense.

[rixross]

You have it backwards. The reason third party candidates have no chance at election is because of how the electoral process is in this country. Third party candidates cannot participate in debates and have to spend almost all of their time getting on the ballots. There is no reason we can't give these parties a chance, the 2 major parties are just worried they might lose power.

[nigglefritz]

The message is great, but the editing is too rushed. Can't read waht you're trying to say in the first half/ Keep up the good work....

[Dutchoven08]

Thanks!

Trying to keep the cuts to the beat, I compromised and thought, Folks will watch with their finger on the pause button... And watch many times.

[brainsplatty]

That was great.

[birdsarewild]

If he really was a man of God then he would have been fair and invited Ron Paul (who has NOT dropped out), Bob Barr (Libertarian Party), and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), and the person who is running under the Green Party.

[ManilaRyceTLM]

they're both lying sacks of shit. the resemblance is frightening isn't it?

[oldhacks]

i hate that fucker chuck todd.

[RationalLiberty]

remember on the NH primary? two hours before the polls closed Chuck Todd was opening his arsehole pronouncing Barack the winner. Douchebag doesnt know anything about politics. Politics is about the role of government, the constitution, not about PR gigs and who 'looks' the best.

Despite the fact that he was blatantly wrong for crowning barack before the polls closed, he is still given credibility-why? I guess because he can pull things out of his arse.

I hate that fucker Chuck Todd.

[Dutchoven08]

Todd the Decider. Kinda like another "decider we know..

He has been groomed as THE new political pundit for big media.

What he says goes, however, there's a hand or two up his backside, puppeteering him and feeding him his ideas.

When asked WHY he pulled Kucinich out of fair, neutral debates, he said he did "what wasw best for the American people".

That's in writing.

Perhaps Karl Rove has a competitor in determining 'What's best for America'!?

Rove designed Bush's lies. -Todd's on TV 24/7

[Dutchoven08]

What's with the orange bristle around their mouths?

A clever disguise?

Karl Rove's illegitimate Children?

Same devious intentions, undoubtedly...

Open the damned debates!

...or we're doomed as a People.

[jacobpsweeney]

chuck todd's a big censor at NBC/MySpace decision08 too. he should be doing afta after shave commercials and that's about it.