Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is for everybody. Please expand your response from yes and no. There are no wrong answers.
Do you automatically ignore information given by what you consider to be the opposition news media because you believe it is biased?
Do you ignore or pay attention to public individuals who are not the news media? This would generally be celebrities (actors, comedians, sports figures, musicians, artists) or other politicians speaking out.
Do you care and/or pay attention to who endorses your candidate whether it be another politician or a newspaper, for example?
Do you get any political information at all from your friends?
Are you more or less likely to trust non-opinion political information you receive on the Internet as correct than from a news establishment on TV or in newspapers?
If you observe a candidate performing well or poorly in a debate, is that a reflection of their competence to be President or does it just reflect on their debating skills?
Do you primarily focus on information about what a candidate has actually done/attempted to do over the years or do you focus on their positions and/or their promises for when they become President?
Do you read or watch or listen to campaign news related to the election like who is raising what money where, who is donating money to which candidates, who is donating their own money to their campaigns, who is campaigning in which states (and who isn't), who is raising more money than someone else, whose campaign staff is in disarray, who makes up different campaign staffs?
Do you pay attention to television campaign ads, positive or negative? Do you check to see who (which group) put the ad on TV? If you don't know the group by their name, do you do research on it to find out?
How do "gaffes" by candidates impact your candidate choice?
Do you read website ads about the candidates?
How does polling information impact your political choices? For example, if a candidate is performing poorly in the polls do you write them off?
If you see a video or a TV ad of a candidate saying something in their own words are you more likely to trust it than something you read or do you give it about the same weight?
Does any of the following information about the candidates impact your candidate choices: age, health, physical appearance (height/weight/hair/glasses/facial hair), voice, mannerisms, gender, race, religion, marital status/history, education?
What do you think of the surveys you receive with requests for political donations?
With the internet, you can find whatever you want on someone, their background and stances on issues, and records while in office to back up the claims(when applicable.) I don't like when politicians take a popular stance to get votes, even though their history shows otherwise.
Question everything, but deal in facts. Smears, spin and propaganda don't help unite us.
I pay attention to every candidate, and not just the bias. I do give every candidate a fair shake before I do my own muckraking.
My #1 factor is backing someone that not only has solutions that can make us all safer and more secure(by measurement of the effectiveness of policy, not just "yeah that feels right") and can benefit more than just myself. If policies are up my ally, but hurt my neighbors, then I lose as well.
I absolutely wont vote for a chickenhawk. I wont vote for someone who needs to refer to other experts for an understanding of the basic fundamentals of their position, although advise is a good thing, but if you NEED to turn to someone else for your main input, then we are better off electing them.
Health is very important to me. None of the candidates have any health issues. I dont think someone would run for President if they felt that they were unable to carry out a term. Even the oldest guy in the race is healthier than the average American. Gary Johnson just did some kind of bike race, while he's not a doctor, he is also a health nut and an athlete. So none of these hopefuls have any health concerns to me, unless someone just wants to make up some low-blow BS about Bachmann being a woman with PMS or who knows what. We have seen it all through history, in the form of propaganda, nothing would surprise me at this point.
Ads don't mean anything to me. Endorsements might, but only if they are credible endorsements. The establishment endorsement and the media endorsement might have some meaning, but not always. Usually when the establishment is making its own movement to clean up its party, their establishment endorsement is a little better, than in years where the party just follows an order of merit. The media candidates usually turn out to be terrible Presidents when they oppose the grass root's candidate, and thats what we have seen for quite a few elections. The media loved Tsongas in 92, as well as the establishment, but the people liked Brown, however, Clinton took the nomination, and would up becoming the media candidate near the end. Not the best example, because both sides were challenging, and Perot made a historical push as an independent. But I do mention 92, because that was one of the few exceptions where the establishment, and media candidate changed mid-primaries. The evolving MTV generation contributed the most to the endorsement, and now with the evolving social-network generation, the boundaries are shifting again, much more than they had in 2008. The culture finds a way to get around the media and establishment candidate when the population is not satisfied with a current President's performance.
[quote=MadeInAmerica;19857835]With the internet, you can find whatever you want on someone, their background and stances on issues, and records while in office to back up the claims(when applicable.) I don't like when politicians take a popular stance to get votes, even though their history shows otherwise.
Totally agree with you there.
Question everything, but deal in facts. Smears, spin and propaganda don't help unite us.
Trouble is, it's harder to figure out the facts, these days.
I pay attention to every candidate, and not just the bias. I do give every candidate a fair shake before I do my own muckraking.
My #1 factor is backing someone that not only has solutions that can make us all safer and more secure(by measurement of the effectiveness of policy, not just "yeah that feels right") and can benefit more than just myself. If policies are up my ally, but hurt my neighbors, then I lose as well.
I will only vote in 2012 based on a person's record (and not the interpreted version, either). They are experienced bs artists when it comes to getting elected then add in the national media assistance and I'm going with past actions over words.
I absolutely wont vote for a chickenhawk. I wont vote for someone who needs to refer to other experts for an understanding of the basic fundamentals of their position, although advise is a good thing, but if you NEED to turn to someone else for your main input, then we are better off electing them.
Chickenhawks are men that pick up boy prostitutes (the chickens). Look it up. I don't know who the goofball media personality was that turned that term to mean something else.
Health is very important to me. None of the candidates have any health issues. I dont think someone would run for President if they felt that they were unable to carry out a term. Even the oldest guy in the race is healthier than the average American. Gary Johnson just did some kind of bike race, while he's not a doctor, he is also a health nut and an athlete. So none of these hopefuls have any health concerns to me, unless someone just wants to make up some low-blow BS about Bachmann being a woman with PMS or who knows what. We have seen it all through history, in the form of propaganda, nothing would surprise me at this point.
Herman Cain had cancer but to me, he has more energy than 10 people.
Ads don't mean anything to me. Endorsements might, but only if they are credible endorsements. The establishment endorsement and the media endorsement might have some meaning, but not always. Usually when the establishment is making its own movement to clean up its party, their establishment endorsement is a little better, than in years where the party just follows an order of merit. The media candidates usually turn out to be terrible Presidents when they oppose the grass root's candidate, and thats what we have seen for quite a few elections. The media loved Tsongas in 92, as well as the establishment, but the people liked Brown, however, Clinton took the nomination, and would up becoming the media candidate near the end. Not the best example, because both sides were challenging, and Perot made a historical push as an independent. But I do mention 92, because that was one of the few exceptions where the establishment, and media candidate changed mid-primaries. The evolving MTV generation contributed the most to the endorsement, and now with the evolving social-network generation, the boundaries are shifting again, much more than they had in 2008. The culture finds a way to get around the media and establishment candidate when the population is not satisfied with a current President's performance.[/QUOTE]
Endorsements mean something to me during primary season...but only in a negative way. When the New York Times, for example, endorses a Republican candidate, he goes to the bottom of my list, except for when they endorsed McCain who already was at the bottom of my list. When the Republican machine tells me (not me, personally) to shut up and get in line and vote for someone like Jack Kemp did, my hackles go up. When politicians endorse each other I totally ignore it about the same way I do authors who endorse each others books. I may like Glenn Beck but I really don't care who he is supporting and that goes for the comedians (Maher, Colbert, Stewart) posing as news people, too. I ignore anyone with an urban mindset, too. They are bubble boys who think they know what the rest of the country is thinking based on polling data and what they hear at their parties. Problem is, the pollsters are also urban bubble boys and don't know the right questions to ask suburban, small town and rural America.
I do exhaustive research on candidates before I decide. I look for consistency and a proven track record. It is not enough for someone to just tell me what I want to hear. I
refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils because the media wants me to choose either of their two bought and paid for Republican or Democrat candidates. Especially now that I've seen in the recent three elections that the country goes farther and farther downhill no matter whether the "electable" Republican or Democrat wins, I've learned that these chosen "electable" candidates (whose campaigns are bought and paid for by the corporate elites) just end up following the agendas of the corporatists who paid for their campaigns and NOTHING GOOD EVER COMES OF IT. The consituents/voters/taxpayers are cast aside. WE ALWAY END UP WORSE OFF THAN WE WERE BEFORE THEY BECAME PRESIDENT. Now I ALWAYS vote my conscience having thoroughly woken up to the lies and deceptions we've been fed all these years.
Quite simply, I usually pay attention to the candidates that the media does not endorse. Those being Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel etc. I watch videos of their speeches and see if I can dig dirt up on them and I make my decision from there. That alone eliminates 99% of all candidates that run for election for me. If the election came to Dennis Kucinich or Rick Perry/Sarah Palin/Hermain Cain/Michele Bachmann, I'd probably vote for Kucinich because at least he's on record speaking out and voting against the Patriot Act, all the wars, and other unconstitutional legislation and actions. I don't like his general leftist stance, but I'm willing to compromise because he's at least authentic and not a tool like Obama or Clinton
I do exhaustive research on candidates before I decide. I look for consistency and a proven track record. It is not enough for someone to just tell me what I want to hear. I
refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils because the media wants me to choose either of their two bought and paid for Republican or Democrat candidates. Especially now that I've seen in the recent three elections that the country goes farther and farther downhill no matter whether the "electable" Republican or Democrat wins, I've learned that these chosen "electable" candidates (whose campaigns are bought and paid for by the corporate elites) just end up following the agendas of the corporatists who paid for their campaigns and NOTHING GOOD EVER COMES OF IT. The consituents/voters/taxpayers are cast aside. WE ALWAY END UP WORSE OFF THAN WE WERE BEFORE THEY BECAME PRESIDENT. Now I ALWAYS vote my conscience having thoroughly woken up to the lies and deceptions we've been fed all these years.
Emily, I believe you are a concerned, smart lady. Can you not clearly recognize that the'system'...top to bottom, inside out....is totally corrupt? Only ONE can change the bad to Good (and HE's not a man)...and I hope you realize that fact...SOON.
Last edited by quality guy; 07-03-2011 at 09:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
