On the Idea that the Democratic Primaries were "Rigged"

[CAA Flagship]

Thought you gave away your TV years ago?

Nah. He needs it to watch Ellen.

[Grizalltheway]

Thought you gave away your TV years ago?

Nah. He needs it to watch Ellen.

[Chizzang]

When you move in with a women you gain a television...

[89Hen]

Kalm's position on third party is very consistent with his view of Wall Street. It is 100% the fault of the institution.

Yes, because people aren't sheep, or susceptible to marketing, and always think for themselves.

So just let the government have control. Gotcha.

[Grizalltheway]

When you move in with a women you gain a television...

Your smug prick cred is fading fast, my friend.

[kalm]

Yes, because people aren't sheep, or susceptible to marketing, and always think for themselves.

So you want things to be more democratic (i.e. have people/voters make the decisions) but you don't trust people/voters to make the right (i.e. what you want) decisions so you want to decide for them? Yeah, sure, sounds awesome.

No. I want fair competition, sunlight, and choices. Sorry you and 89 disagree with these ideals.

[OL FU]

When you move in with a women you gain a television...

So you started drinking again

[GannonFan]

So you want things to be more democratic (i.e. have people/voters make the decisions) but you don't trust people/voters to make the right (i.e. what you want) decisions so you want to decide for them? Yeah, sure, sounds awesome.

No. I want fair competition, sunlight, and choices. Sorry you and 89 disagree with these ideals.

Nice try, but show me where I have said that I don't want fair competition. I've been with Ivy's idea of no restrictions on political speech or activity and full transparency - i.e., you donate money to anyone and anyone can see that you did it. Everyone knows where all the money is going. You're the one who wants to shield the voters from political speech or *gasp* political advertisements, because you think the voter will be unable to process these ideas and form their own opinion. Why do you have such a low opinion of the voters that you want to decide for them? For shame.

[kalm]

No. I want fair competition, sunlight, and choices. Sorry you and 89 disagree with these ideals.

Nice try, but show me where I have said that I don't want fair competition. I've been with Ivy's idea of no restrictions on political speech or activity and full transparency - i.e., you donate money to anyone and anyone can see that you did it. Everyone knows where all the money is going. You're the one who wants to shield the voters from political speech or *gasp* political advertisements, because you think the voter will be unable to process these ideas and form their own opinion. Why do you have such a low opinion of the voters that you want to decide for them? For shame.

Sigh...again.

Transparency and disclosure are steps in the right direction. But massive amounts of even transparent funding, that controls media content, can still drown out other speech. It's the equivalent of effectively shouting down your opposition.

And it's right there...in front of your face. Every election.

It's up to you to be honest and recognize it.

[GannonFan]

Nice try, but show me where I have said that I don't want fair competition. I've been with Ivy's idea of no restrictions on political speech or activity and full transparency - i.e., you donate money to anyone and anyone can see that you did it. Everyone knows where all the money is going. You're the one who wants to shield the voters from political speech or *gasp* political advertisements, because you think the voter will be unable to process these ideas and form their own opinion. Why do you have such a low opinion of the voters that you want to decide for them? For shame.

Sigh...again.

Transparency and disclosure are steps in the right direction. But massive amounts of even transparent funding, that controls media content, can still drown out other speech. It's the equivalent of effectively shouting down your opposition.

And it's right there...in front of your face. Every election.

It's up to you to be honest and recognize it.

Okay, so you're afraid of political speech. I think we knew that already. What's the right way to determine exactly how much free speech people are allowed to have? How do you make sure that you don't favor one candidate over another as you regulate and control what used to be free speech? Who gets to decide that? What's the one size fits all regulation that will work for every voter out there?

Odd that you bemoan the control of media content in an era where MSM has less and less impact everyday considering the explosion of the information age and the incredible amount of media outlets. The issue today isn't the drowning out of other speech - in typical kalm fashion, you're fighting the battle of two decades ago. It was possible to drown out your political opponent then when there were so few media outlets. It's impossible to do that today, there are just too many outlets and no way to drown them all out. It's like the kid with his fingers in the damn - it was easy when there were two or three leaks, ala two or three MSM outlets. Now there's an outlet for every single viewpoint possible and the leaks in the damn are hard to count and they increase every time you stop to count them. The issue isn't being able to drown out other speech, that's just patently impossible with the amount of changes that have happened even in just the last ten years (like I said, you tend to be fixated on decades past rather than the present) - the issue is that most voters have retreated to echo chambers where they don't need to even contemplate what someone who they oppose is even saying. Social media today is so good at winnowing and channeling your preferences that you're never exposed to contrarian thought so you never have the chance to hear something different from what you already believe and have the experience of rejecting it or accepting it, wholly or partially, and moderating your own position. That's why we have extremism and polarization in politics. Fight that battle, fight the thing that is currently the issue, not some made up issue that was the case twenty years ago. Stay current.

[kalm]

Sigh...again.

Transparency and disclosure are steps in the right direction. But massive amounts of even transparent funding, that controls media content, can still drown out other speech. It's the equivalent of effectively shouting down your opposition.

And it's right there...in front of your face. Every election.

It's up to you to be honest and recognize it.

Okay, so you're afraid of political speech. I think we knew that already. What's the right way to determine exactly how much free speech people are allowed to have? How do you make sure that you don't favor one candidate over another as you regulate and control what used to be free speech? Who gets to decide that? What's the one size fits all regulation that will work for every voter out there?

Odd that you bemoan the control of media content in an era where MSM has less and less impact everyday considering the explosion of the information age and the incredible amount of media outlets. The issue today isn't the drowning out of other speech - in typical kalm fashion, you're fighting the battle of two decades ago. It was possible to drown out your political opponent then when there were so few media outlets. It's impossible to do that today, there are just too many outlets and no way to drown them all out. It's like the kid with his fingers in the damn - it was easy when there were two or three leaks, ala two or three MSM outlets. Now there's an outlet for every single viewpoint possible and the leaks in the damn are hard to count and they increase every time you stop to count them. The issue isn't being able to drown out other speech, that's just patently impossible with the amount of changes that have happened even in just the last ten years (like I said, you tend to be fixated on decades past rather than the present) - the issue is that most voters have retreated to echo chambers where they don't need to even contemplate what someone who they oppose is even saying. Social media today is so good at winnowing and channeling your preferences that you're never exposed to contrarian thought so you never have the chance to hear something different from what you already believe and have the experience of rejecting it or accepting it, wholly or partially, and moderating your own position. That's why we have extremism and polarization in politics. Fight that battle, fight the thing that is currently the issue, not some made up issue that was the case twenty years ago. Stay current.

More intellectual dishonesty. Surprise!

Go back to my original points. Hint: you're sort of agreeing with one here...that people live in their own bubbles and are susceptible to propaganda.

1). Marketing is effective and people are susceptible to it. If you have enough money, you can even convince them that Bud Light is flavorful and Nicleback is cutting edge.

2). Elections are not won by ideas but by promotion. The more money you have, the easier it gets.

Start there and see if you still disagree. Then we can move on to remedies.

Another hint: new media is also driven by money.

Best of luck!

[CAA Flagship]

1). Marketing is effective and people are susceptible to it. If you have enough money, you can even convince them that Bud Light is flavorful and Nicleback is cutting edge.

If you mean "doesn't taste like shit", then people don't need to be "convinced". It's pretty obvious.

[GannonFan]

Okay, so you're afraid of political speech. I think we knew that already. What's the right way to determine exactly how much free speech people are allowed to have? How do you make sure that you don't favor one candidate over another as you regulate and control what used to be free speech? Who gets to decide that? What's the one size fits all regulation that will work for every voter out there?

Odd that you bemoan the control of media content in an era where MSM has less and less impact everyday considering the explosion of the information age and the incredible amount of media outlets. The issue today isn't the drowning out of other speech - in typical kalm fashion, you're fighting the battle of two decades ago. It was possible to drown out your political opponent then when there were so few media outlets. It's impossible to do that today, there are just too many outlets and no way to drown them all out. It's like the kid with his fingers in the damn - it was easy when there were two or three leaks, ala two or three MSM outlets. Now there's an outlet for every single viewpoint possible and the leaks in the damn are hard to count and they increase every time you stop to count them. The issue isn't being able to drown out other speech, that's just patently impossible with the amount of changes that have happened even in just the last ten years (like I said, you tend to be fixated on decades past rather than the present) - the issue is that most voters have retreated to echo chambers where they don't need to even contemplate what someone who they oppose is even saying. Social media today is so good at winnowing and channeling your preferences that you're never exposed to contrarian thought so you never have the chance to hear something different from what you already believe and have the experience of rejecting it or accepting it, wholly or partially, and moderating your own position. That's why we have extremism and polarization in politics. Fight that battle, fight the thing that is currently the issue, not some made up issue that was the case twenty years ago. Stay current.

More intellectual dishonesty. Surprise!

Go back to my original points. Hint: you're sort of agreeing with one here...that people live in their own bubbles and are susceptible to propaganda.

1). Marketing is effective and people are susceptible to it. If you have enough money, you can even convince them that Bud Light is flavorful and Nicleback is cutting edge.

2). Elections are not won by ideas but by promotion. The more money you have, the easier it gets.

Start there and see if you still disagree. Then we can move on to remedies.

Another hint: new media is also driven by money.

Best of luck!

Money isn't the driver, money follows what works. Yes, elections are won by promotion (which can include ideas), but money doesn't make a bad promotion work. Think New Coke. Plenty of money there, didn't work. You're fixated on money so you can't see that. The person who wins an election is normally the person who had the most money in the end, but that's because people like betting on a winner, the bettors don't make the winner. Oh, and that goes for new media as well. Facebook, twitter, et al, succeeded first as a promotion or an idea, and then the money came rolling in.

Oh, and what I said was surely intellectual, no argument there, but where was the dishonesty? Examples please.

Oh, and no amount of money has made enough people really think Nickelback is cutting edge. That example actually proves my point, money can sell a bad promotion.

[Ivytalk]

Sigh...again.

Transparency and disclosure are steps in the right direction. But massive amounts of even transparent funding, that controls media content, can still drown out other speech. It's the equivalent of effectively shouting down your opposition.

And it's right there...in front of your face. Every election.

It's up to you to be honest and recognize it.

Okay, so you're afraid of political speech. I think we knew that already. What's the right way to determine exactly how much free speech people are allowed to have? How do you make sure that you don't favor one candidate over another as you regulate and control what used to be free speech? Who gets to decide that? What's the one size fits all regulation that will work for every voter out there?

Odd that you bemoan the control of media content in an era where MSM has less and less impact everyday considering the explosion of the information age and the incredible amount of media outlets. The issue today isn't the drowning out of other speech - in typical kalm fashion, you're fighting the battle of two decades ago. It was possible to drown out your political opponent then when there were so few media outlets. It's impossible to do that today, there are just too many outlets and no way to drown them all out. It's like the kid with his fingers in the damn - it was easy when there were two or three leaks, ala two or three MSM outlets. Now there's an outlet for every single viewpoint possible and the leaks in the damn are hard to count and they increase every time you stop to count them. The issue isn't being able to drown out other speech, that's just patently impossible with the amount of changes that have happened even in just the last ten years (like I said, you tend to be fixated on decades past rather than the present) - the issue is that most voters have retreated to echo chambers where they don't need to even contemplate what someone who they oppose is even saying. Social media today is so good at winnowing and channeling your preferences that you're never exposed to contrarian thought so you never have the chance to hear something different from what you already believe and have the experience of rejecting it or accepting it, wholly or partially, and moderating your own position. That's why we have extremism and polarization in politics. Fight that battle, fight the thing that is currently the issue, not some made up issue that was the case twenty years ago. Stay current.

Damn what? *dam

I don't know what to make of the last highlighted statement. Sure, people build themselves ideological cocoons on the Internet by choosing to exclude content with which they disagree, or to "unfriend" people with whom they disagree. Nothing philosophically wrong with that, although it may not be the wisest choice from the perspective of having an "educated electorate."

[GannonFan]

Okay, so you're afraid of political speech. I think we knew that already. What's the right way to determine exactly how much free speech people are allowed to have? How do you make sure that you don't favor one candidate over another as you regulate and control what used to be free speech? Who gets to decide that? What's the one size fits all regulation that will work for every voter out there?

Odd that you bemoan the control of media content in an era where MSM has less and less impact everyday considering the explosion of the information age and the incredible amount of media outlets. The issue today isn't the drowning out of other speech - in typical kalm fashion, you're fighting the battle of two decades ago. It was possible to drown out your political opponent then when there were so few media outlets. It's impossible to do that today, there are just too many outlets and no way to drown them all out. It's like the kid with his fingers in the damn - it was easy when there were two or three leaks, ala two or three MSM outlets. Now there's an outlet for every single viewpoint possible and the leaks in the damn are hard to count and they increase every time you stop to count them. The issue isn't being able to drown out other speech, that's just patently impossible with the amount of changes that have happened even in just the last ten years (like I said, you tend to be fixated on decades past rather than the present) - the issue is that most voters have retreated to echo chambers where they don't need to even contemplate what someone who they oppose is even saying. Social media today is so good at winnowing and channeling your preferences that you're never exposed to contrarian thought so you never have the chance to hear something different from what you already believe and have the experience of rejecting it or accepting it, wholly or partially, and moderating your own position. That's why we have extremism and polarization in politics. Fight that battle, fight the thing that is currently the issue, not some made up issue that was the case twenty years ago. Stay current.

Damn what? *dam

I don't know what to make of the last highlighted statement. Sure, people build themselves ideological cocoons on the Internet by choosing to exclude content with which they disagree, or to "unfriend" people with whom they disagree. Nothing philosophically wrong with that, although it may not be the wisest choice from the perspective of having an "educated electorate."

Oh, heck, I cursed! I feel dirty now.

Never disagreed with the philosophical or even the right to cocoon yourself - people are free to do what they want to. But yes, it does diminish the number of educated people in the electorate.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

When you move in with a women you gain a television...

Your smug prick cred is fading fast, my friend.

What is more smug than a man (debatable) moving in with a woman?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[kalm]

More intellectual dishonesty. Surprise!

Go back to my original points. Hint: you're sort of agreeing with one here...that people live in their own bubbles and are susceptible to propaganda.

1). Marketing is effective and people are susceptible to it. If you have enough money, you can even convince them that Bud Light is flavorful and Nicleback is cutting edge.

2). Elections are not won by ideas but by promotion. The more money you have, the easier it gets.

Start there and see if you still disagree. Then we can move on to remedies.

Another hint: new media is also driven by money.

Best of luck!

Money isn't the driver, money follows what works. Yes, elections are won by promotion (which can include ideas), but money doesn't make a bad promotion work. Think New Coke. Plenty of money there, didn't work. You're fixated on money so you can't see that. The person who wins an election is normally the person who had the most money in the end, but that's because people like betting on a winner, the bettors don't make the winner. Oh, and that goes for new media as well. Facebook, twitter, et al, succeeded first as a promotion or an idea, and then the money came rolling in.

Oh, and what I said was surely intellectual, no argument there, but where was the dishonesty? Examples please.

Oh, and no amount of money has made enough people really think Nickelback is cutting edge. That example actually proves my point, money can sell a bad promotion.

"I'm afraid of political speech".

You're either dishonest or projecting.

Btw, Nicleback has sold over 50 million albums.

Sorry, you still lose...

[Chizzang]

When you move in with a women you gain a television...

Your smug prick cred is fading fast, my friend.

I'm drifting dangerously close to "pathetic douche" territory I fear...

[GannonFan]

Money isn't the driver, money follows what works. Yes, elections are won by promotion (which can include ideas), but money doesn't make a bad promotion work. Think New Coke. Plenty of money there, didn't work. You're fixated on money so you can't see that. The person who wins an election is normally the person who had the most money in the end, but that's because people like betting on a winner, the bettors don't make the winner. Oh, and that goes for new media as well. Facebook, twitter, et al, succeeded first as a promotion or an idea, and then the money came rolling in.

Oh, and what I said was surely intellectual, no argument there, but where was the dishonesty? Examples please.

Oh, and no amount of money has made enough people really think Nickelback is cutting edge. That example actually proves my point, money can sell a bad promotion.

"I'm afraid of political speech".

You're either dishonest or projecting.

Btw, Nicleback has sold over 50 million albums.

Sorry, you still lose...

Nickelback is Canadian, those Canucks will buy anything. Album sales are thus inadmissible as proof of them being "cutting edge". Point to me.

As for you being afraid of political speech, there's nothing dishonest about that, that's your casus belli. You think any possibility of people hearing and believing something you don't agree with (since you're the arbiter of all things right and just in the world) is anathema and therefore must be squelched at all costs. Sure, political speech and the freedom of it is fine, as long as you agree with it. Otherwise we should do all that we can, and create laws if need be, to protect the poor innocent and gullible voters who may make up their own mind and believe something you don't (which they will only do because of money, not because they could actually agree with it). That's what ultimately betrays your false pronouncement to be a moderate in things political, you don't really see value in the other side of an argument, you see an argument that is only floated by some evil financial backing, just because you don't agree with it. Open your mind, explore the possibility of being wrong from time to time and readjusting as a result of it, you'll be a better kalm for it. Oh, and have faith in the voters, they screw up from time to time but generally do alright.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I own everything Nickleback, all the albums, tshirts, lanyards, wallets and a Nickleback vacuum.

#suckithaters

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

I own everything Nickleback, all the albums, tshirts, lanyards, wallets and a Nickleback vacuum.

#suckithaters

Lanyards Nice touch
True comedy is in the details

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I own everything Nickleback, all the albums, tshirts, lanyards, wallets and a Nickleback vacuum.

#suckithaters

Lanyards Nice touch
True comedy is in the details

I could do this until 6 in the morning

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

Lanyards Nice touch
True comedy is in the details

I could do this until 6 in the morning

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

What happens at 6 in the morning?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I could do this until 6 in the morning

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

What happens at 6 in the morning?

We drink up, we fall down
And we do it all again.

Do you need a Photograph?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

What happens at 6 in the morning?

We drink up, we fall down
And we do it all again.

Do you need a Photograph?