- 1,084
- 415
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
Aight, since this is a thread about nothing, and I often write about nothing, ima go ahead and throw some of my semi-daily posts in here...not like anybody gives a ****.
Today, we talk about presidential debates, how they're just entertainment, and why they could be so much better if we just acknowledged it.
http://undermyfitted.blogspot.com/2012/10/wwe-people-improving-debate
*clears throat*
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=155014926786278235http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=155014926786278235
Like I said in that status last night, I watch political debates for an accurate, comprehensive evaluation of the candidates and their policies just as people watch pro wrestling for a good clean fight...not at all. As they'll be quick to tell you, it's only entertainment and you should not try it at home (which makes wrestling more real than politics, but I digress). I look at it for what it is, a lightly scripted performance piece from 2 people looking to advance their careers through it.
In fact, the very definition of a campaign ([n.]- a concerted effort to influence the decision making of a segment
of a population, usually by exaggerating the positive qualities or
emphasizing the negative qualities of a person or concept) implies that the whole thing is a crock of ****. Still, there's plenty of entertainment to be had by watching two eerily similar politicians argue to the death over their minor differences in an effort to sway people into voting for them...it's almost like a reality TV show, isn't it?
Of course, reality TV is the fakest **** ever to grace our airwaves, but they're not the highest rated, most talked about pop culture shows because they reveal deep truths about the nature of existence or anything...they're popular because you either get to see two idiots get into a shouting match over something pointless or get to vote on who's better at whatever, making you feel like you are truly part of the process, as opposed to the real winner being determined beforehand by shadowy power-types. What could possibly combine the two concepts better than the presidential debates? Of course, for this to work, there have to be a few changes.
First off, there should be rounds, like in any good fight. Let's say 10 5-minute rounds. Each round could be on a specific topic (economy, foreign policy, immigration, etc.), and candidates would have 2 minutes each to outline their policy on the subject. Every actual point made on the subject would be tallied to be added up at the end of each round and at the end of the match. The roundabout rhetoric and banal buzzwords would have to be saved for the commercials, where they belong.
The last minute of each round would be devoted to counterarguments. This ensures that both candidates will be able to properly present their ******** while giving each the chance to call the other out on it as well as just making for good television. There would also be a CompuBox-style tracking tool to keep tabs on the verbal jabs, arguments landed, and counterattacks in case nobody scores a technical knockout and they both just kind of lean menacingly on each other as the fight goes on. The total number of points scored goes towards determining the winner. (What's reality TV without a winner?)
Since the line between fiction and reality TV is drawn by how credible it is, there should at least be some way to tell who's merely bending the truth and who's turning straight lines of logic into double-helixes of deception. Even reality TV is somewhat believable because there is an established continuity of the characters and their behavior patterns. That chick may be acting like a mentally unstable sluttard, but that's who she's been since the series started, so it's not like it comes as a total shock.
However, as it stands there's no real way to determine who's more full of bovinium in a presidential debate...which is why there should be a scrolling fact-checking ticker on the bottom of the screen at all times. Political records, policies supported and opposed, relevant personal information...it should be flowing as constantly as the lies. You can be as mendacious as you want, but the truth will rip all kinds of holes in your tapestry of ********.
There should also be dial-in voting, since it's as much a popularity contest as any other reality show. That way, you could text BARRYO or MITTENS to 11412 and tell America who your choice is. It's always fun to feel like a part of the process, isn't it? Of course, the popular vote would only be half what determines the winner of the debate--the less important half--but then again, it's good practice for the actual election (which one day will also be text/social media-based).
If no winner can be determined at the end of 10 rounds, there should naturally be a tiebreaker. Since they've likely said all the meaningful things they have to say for the evening and any further speaking would just be recaps and nonsense, it's time to take the gloves off...or more accurately, put them on. Yes, overtime in this new style of political debate would take the form of a round of boxing. Nobody wants a president who other world leaders can just beat up, so this would be an excellent display of the candidates' ability to fight for the American people. It means about as much as the other common things candidates are judged on, such as speaking ability, charm, or choice in faith.
Overall, the presidential debate is usually a pretty entertaining affair, but I just think it could be vastly improved with a few changes. True, the whole thing is a cross between a puppet show and a pageant, but at least this way, the American people could come away infotained. I mean, let's be honest about it...in the right hands, it could be the most important reality show on Earth (which isn't saying a whole lot) as well as an opportunity to actually learn something about who you're voting for...but then again, that just makes too much damn sense, doesn't it?
Today, we talk about presidential debates, how they're just entertainment, and why they could be so much better if we just acknowledged it.
http://undermyfitted.blogspot.com/2012/10/wwe-people-improving-debate
*clears throat*
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=155014926786278235http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=155014926786278235Like I said in that status last night, I watch political debates for an accurate, comprehensive evaluation of the candidates and their policies just as people watch pro wrestling for a good clean fight...not at all. As they'll be quick to tell you, it's only entertainment and you should not try it at home (which makes wrestling more real than politics, but I digress). I look at it for what it is, a lightly scripted performance piece from 2 people looking to advance their careers through it.
In fact, the very definition of a campaign ([n.]- a concerted effort to influence the decision making of a segment
of a population, usually by exaggerating the positive qualities or
emphasizing the negative qualities of a person or concept) implies that the whole thing is a crock of ****. Still, there's plenty of entertainment to be had by watching two eerily similar politicians argue to the death over their minor differences in an effort to sway people into voting for them...it's almost like a reality TV show, isn't it?
Of course, reality TV is the fakest **** ever to grace our airwaves, but they're not the highest rated, most talked about pop culture shows because they reveal deep truths about the nature of existence or anything...they're popular because you either get to see two idiots get into a shouting match over something pointless or get to vote on who's better at whatever, making you feel like you are truly part of the process, as opposed to the real winner being determined beforehand by shadowy power-types. What could possibly combine the two concepts better than the presidential debates? Of course, for this to work, there have to be a few changes.
First off, there should be rounds, like in any good fight. Let's say 10 5-minute rounds. Each round could be on a specific topic (economy, foreign policy, immigration, etc.), and candidates would have 2 minutes each to outline their policy on the subject. Every actual point made on the subject would be tallied to be added up at the end of each round and at the end of the match. The roundabout rhetoric and banal buzzwords would have to be saved for the commercials, where they belong.
The last minute of each round would be devoted to counterarguments. This ensures that both candidates will be able to properly present their ******** while giving each the chance to call the other out on it as well as just making for good television. There would also be a CompuBox-style tracking tool to keep tabs on the verbal jabs, arguments landed, and counterattacks in case nobody scores a technical knockout and they both just kind of lean menacingly on each other as the fight goes on. The total number of points scored goes towards determining the winner. (What's reality TV without a winner?)
Since the line between fiction and reality TV is drawn by how credible it is, there should at least be some way to tell who's merely bending the truth and who's turning straight lines of logic into double-helixes of deception. Even reality TV is somewhat believable because there is an established continuity of the characters and their behavior patterns. That chick may be acting like a mentally unstable sluttard, but that's who she's been since the series started, so it's not like it comes as a total shock.
However, as it stands there's no real way to determine who's more full of bovinium in a presidential debate...which is why there should be a scrolling fact-checking ticker on the bottom of the screen at all times. Political records, policies supported and opposed, relevant personal information...it should be flowing as constantly as the lies. You can be as mendacious as you want, but the truth will rip all kinds of holes in your tapestry of ********.
There should also be dial-in voting, since it's as much a popularity contest as any other reality show. That way, you could text BARRYO or MITTENS to 11412 and tell America who your choice is. It's always fun to feel like a part of the process, isn't it? Of course, the popular vote would only be half what determines the winner of the debate--the less important half--but then again, it's good practice for the actual election (which one day will also be text/social media-based).
If no winner can be determined at the end of 10 rounds, there should naturally be a tiebreaker. Since they've likely said all the meaningful things they have to say for the evening and any further speaking would just be recaps and nonsense, it's time to take the gloves off...or more accurately, put them on. Yes, overtime in this new style of political debate would take the form of a round of boxing. Nobody wants a president who other world leaders can just beat up, so this would be an excellent display of the candidates' ability to fight for the American people. It means about as much as the other common things candidates are judged on, such as speaking ability, charm, or choice in faith.
Overall, the presidential debate is usually a pretty entertaining affair, but I just think it could be vastly improved with a few changes. True, the whole thing is a cross between a puppet show and a pageant, but at least this way, the American people could come away infotained. I mean, let's be honest about it...in the right hands, it could be the most important reality show on Earth (which isn't saying a whole lot) as well as an opportunity to actually learn something about who you're voting for...but then again, that just makes too much damn sense, doesn't it?
cold city was about to be the dug out one for 3K
