What makes Ron Paul, Ron Paul.

[SDC]

Oliver, would you please respond to my question / comment about fair media coverage for David Duke? I'd be surprised if knowledgeable Europeans hadn't, at least, heard of him. He's been a KKK leader, I think other elements, and has had some state election success in Louisiana and run for senator as well. (Heck, he may have run for president at some point. I wouldn't be surprised.) Does he deserve equal coverage with, say, Ron Paul et al.?

Again, I'm not trying to bait anyone into an argument. I want to know the "equal coverage" view of this case.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, would you please respond to my question / comment about fair media coverage for David Duke? I'd be surprised if knowledgeable Europeans hadn't, at least, heard of him. He's been a KKK leader, I think other elements, and has had some state election success in Louisiana and run for senator as well. (Heck, he may have run for president at some point. I wouldn't be surprised.) Does he deserve equal coverage with, say, Ron Paul et al.?

Again, I'm not trying to bait anyone into an argument. I want to know the "equal coverage" view of this case.

I have no Idea to what extent David Duke or the Stormfront
forum endorsing Ron Paul has something to do with Ron Paul
himself - unless Paul endorses those people as well - which
isn't the case. So what's the fuss about?

 

[jsiv]

This means that we don't argue 2 years long about elections and
there is no need to raise money. The parties campaigns are sponsored
by Tax-Money without any fund raising whatsoever.

Do you have a source that lists the donations the individual German parties receive from non-public sources (private individuals/corporations in the EU) as well as their public funding?

How is the amount of public funding they receive calculated? Is there an upper ceiling that gets lower depending on how much non-public funding they get?

I'd be grateful for any details you can give me. I'm very skeptical of your claims that they get by on "tax money" alone. They may not be standing on the corner begging for money, but surely they have their ways of raising funds. Certainly the large parties must get plenty of money from other sources?

From what I've been able to gather, the US actually has some of the most restrictive campaign financing laws in the western world, outright banning direct donations from sources like corporations, government contractors, and unions (they're particularly powerful here in Norway, and big donators).

 

[Kerberos]

Here's a question. Sincere. I'm not trying to make a special point about anyone. But representatives from (I think) Germany and Australia on this thread have both referred to national requirements that every party get equal time in the media. Really? How is a "party" defined? In the US, at least, there are quite a few, running the gamut from Reps and Dems, to Conservatives and Liberals (only in NY, I think), Right to Life, various Marxist parties, the LaRouchees (sp?), those guys in Texas who think that their state is an independent Republic, some Youpers [Youper = resident of the Upper Peninsula] in northern Michigan who are trying to secede to create a 51st state... You get the drift.

I suppose that the equivalents exist in Germany or Australia, though it will be somewhat different everywhere. (Very few Youpers in Germany, I bet. Perhaps the equivalent would be Schleswig-Holstein secessionists, but only those who want their own Land, not those who want to join Denmark.) Do all the groups get equal time in the media? Is there a cut-off point?

Gack. What a prospect. The blood runs cold.

There is no demand for exactly equal coverage in Denmark, but all parties gets a certain amount of guarentied coverage, and get's to participate in the big debates. The cutt-off point is that they must be oficially running which requires that they get 20.000 signatures from elegible voters (there are around 4 million Danes who are allowed to vote).

 

[Oliver]

Do you have a source that lists the donations the individual German parties receive from non-public sources (private individuals/corporations in the EU) as well as their public funding?

How is the amount of public funding they receive calculated? Is there an upper ceiling that gets lower depending on how much non-public funding they get?

I'd be grateful for any details you can give me. I'm very skeptical of your claims that they get by on "tax money" alone. They may not be standing on the corner begging for money, but surely they have their ways of raising funds. Certainly the large parties must get plenty of money from other sources?

From what I've been able to gather, the US actually has some of the most restrictive campaign financing laws in the western world, outright banning direct donations from sources like corporations, government contractors, and unions (they're particularly powerful here in Norway, and big donators).

That's true that there are Parteispenden (Party contributions),
but you know the off-topic rule - so I will start another thread
about the issue.

ETA:Parteispenden (Party contributions)

 

[jsiv]

There is no demand for exactly equal coverage in Denmark, but all parties gets a certain amount of guarentied coverage, and get's to participate in the big debates. The cutt-off point is that they must be oficially running which requires that they get 20.000 signatures from elegible voters (there are around 4 million Danes who are allowed to vote).

Would I be wrong in assuming that this only applies to the state broadcaster (Danmarks Radio) that is essentially funded by tax money?

That's a bit different than the people who seem to want private corporations like Fox News and CNN to be subject to the same requirements.

 

[Kerberos]

Would I be wrong in assuming that this only applies to the state broadcaster (Danmarks Radio) that is essentially funded by tax money?

Yes that's true, though the governement likes to pretend that the money financing DR isn't a tax.

 

[SDC]

I have no Idea to what extent David Duke or the Stormfront
forum endorsing Ron Paul has something to do with Ron Paul
himself - unless Paul endorses those people as well - which
isn't the case. So what's the fuss about?

I'm not talking about endorsements of Paul by extremists. I believe that you have said in this thread -- please correct me if I am wrong -- that US "mainstream media" outlets are wrong for not including more Paul coverage; and that a better model is the one (apparently) applied in Germany, where some sort of "equal coverage" rules apply in the media; I assume that would be the broadcast media only, incidentally, not newspapers.

My comment in response to that was to point out ways in which the size and complexity of the US, and its 50+ political jurisdictions (states plus DC etc.), make "equal coverage" notions thoroughly unworkable.

Obviously things are different in small countries with simple political systems such as Germany. (Though one wonders what will happen as the polity becomes more complex, for example if/ when Turkish ethnic parties develop). But here in the States, how do we include the Klan in equal coverage? And what should we do when a particular movement is strong in one state and weak or non-existent in another? References to "every party which has X% of the vote" are unworkable in our federal system. Small parties may be strong on local scales, and in local elections and legislatures, and surely would insist on equal local coverage. But how can that apply in broadcast media? Especially in (say) Missouri, where the two big cities with strong media are on the borders of the neighboring states, and broadcast into those states as well as into Missouri?

Not to mention my state, New York, whose "local" media are often more national than anything else.

I'm not addressing Paul matters directly, but I'm addressing points you raised about Paul's campaign. I'm trying to find out how you propose we apply your ideas and ideals.

Perhaps I'm raising issues you regard as too complex for discussion; but their complexity is precisely what makes the conversation interesting.

Thanks. I await your answers to my questions and comments.

 

[SDC]

I suppose I have to conclude that Oliver doesn't wish to address my questions and comments. So it goes. But I continue to believe that complex reality trumps simple-minded viewpoints.

I'm just relieved that things are so simple in German politics nowadays. I've been doing a lot of reading about the Weimar Republic (+1933).

 

[Oliver]

I'm not talking about endorsements of Paul by extremists. I believe that you have said in this thread -- please correct me if I am wrong -- that US "mainstream media" outlets are wrong for not including more Paul coverage; and that a better model is the one (apparently) applied in Germany, where some sort of "equal coverage" rules apply in the media; I assume that would be the broadcast media only, incidentally, not newspapers.
My comment in response to that was to point out ways in which the size and complexity of the US, and its 50+ political jurisdictions (states plus DC etc.), make "equal coverage" notions thoroughly unworkable.

Obviously things are different in small countries with simple political systems such as Germany. (Though one wonders what will happen as the polity becomes more complex, for example if/ when Turkish ethnic parties develop). But here in the States, how do we include the Klan in equal coverage? And what should we do when a particular movement is strong in one state and weak or non-existent in another? References to "every party which has X% of the vote" are unworkable in our federal system. Small parties may be strong on local scales, and in local elections and legislatures, and surely would insist on equal local coverage. But how can that apply in broadcast media? Especially in (say) Missouri, where the two big cities with strong media are on the borders of the neighboring states, and broadcast into those states as well as into Missouri?

Not to mention my state, New York, whose "local" media are often more national than anything else.

I'm not addressing Paul matters directly, but I'm addressing points you raised about Paul's campaign. I'm trying to find out how you propose we apply your ideas and ideals.

Perhaps I'm raising issues you regard as too complex for discussion; but their complexity is precisely what makes the conversation interesting.

Thanks. I await your answers to my questions and comments.

What exactly is so improbable if the law says: "If your Media outlet
prints or airs political ads, you have to treat all parties the same
way - allowing all parties to raise their points".

I know this isn't cool to air Democratic ads at Fox - but it would
allow the Fox-Audience to hear the other side as well. That's
democratic to allow all opinions.

That's completely independent from how big a country is - besides
the fact that the Republic basically are a lot of smaller Governments,
the ones on State- and District-level. Works the same way over
here as well.

If the Turkish Party would get more popular, this wouldn't change
anything - unless all parties decide that the Constitution has to
be changed regarding electoral topics.

If the Klan decides to publish an election-related Ad, so be it - they
are paying for it. What's so curious about that in a capitalistic
society? There are new Ideas out there - let's hear them.

Now I don't know if America will ever change regarding their
strange but also funny electoral system - it's just annoying
to see that not everyone is allowed to make their points.

And Ron Paul is tending to be a lucky one, running as a Republican,
the third parties are literally "locked away". Don't they have some
good Ideas as well? You'll never know unless you research on your
own...

 

[SDC]

Obviously the Klan can buy its own time. I am still trying to understand how an "equal coverage" requirement would work. Do you mean that the Klan, if it were organized as a formal political party in (say) Louisiana, it could demand equal time from Fox, in an "equal coverage" environment? Or would it have to demand this only from some public/ state-owned broadcast system? (Local cable networks, which have very low viewerships, typically have some sort of public access requirements, I think.)

You have advocated some sort of "equal coverage" requirement, if I understand your statements correctly. I want to know how this would work, on local bases -- which are the true bases of politics. And what about independents (e.g., Lieberman, Sanders)? How do they fit? Obviously people can buy time but that doesn't provide "equal coverage," since different groups have different amounts of money.

Is that your issue? Equal funding? But the same questions apply, including, who pays for the Klan's ads?


It must be a simple world in Europe. Youse guys have it easy.

 

[Oliver]

Obviously the Klan can buy its own time. I am still trying to understand how an "equal coverage" requirement would work. Do you mean that the Klan, if it were organized as a formal political party in (say) Louisiana, it could demand equal time from Fox, in an "equal coverage" environment? Or would it have to demand this only from some public/ state-owned broadcast system? (Local cable networks, which have very low viewerships, typically have some sort of public access requirements, I think.)

You have advocated some sort of "equal coverage" requirement, if I understand your statements correctly. I want to know how this would work, on local bases -- which are the true bases of politics. And what about independents (e.g., Lieberman, Sanders)? How do they fit? Obviously people can buy time but that doesn't provide "equal coverage," since different groups have different amounts of money.

Is that your issue? Equal funding? But the same questions apply, including, who pays for the Klan's ads?


It must be a simple world in Europe. Youse guys have it easy.

You may confuse political ad, electoral ad and coverage here.

You don't see or hear much Political ads outside elections - I don't
even remember one to be honest.

Electoral Ad's get the same treatment:
A. The media-outlet has to air them.

B. There is no Fundraising - the Party pays for the Ad
on BEHALF the parties course - not on behalf a candidate.
(We have a completely different, parliamentary system over here).

C. The media-outlet can't say we publish Republican ad's
but we refuse to publish Democrat - or Klan Ads.

Political coverage: In Germany there is as good as none
coverage about any politicians private life (if a politician
doesn't want to). No one really cares about that - and it
certainly is completely unrelated to elections since you
vote for the Party, not the parties leader - which also
completely differs from the US-System.

So there are no smear-campaigns over here about elections
unless a scandal is related to the whole party. But there
is no mud-slinging between candidate Biden and Huckabee,
for example.

I understand that the US system is different - but if Fox
decides that Huckabee isn't running in the interest of
Fox news, they simply skip and smear him if necessary.
There is nothing you can do about that - no matter how
genius Huckabee's political ideas are, for example.

And that's what I think is unfair treatment.

ETA: By that I mean that basically ONE MAN decides about
what's on Fox News or not. (To take the most prominent
example Fox - no matter what the voter thinks)

 

[SDC]

Oliver, well, as I've said things must be simple in a small country with a simple polity and a homogeneous population. Haven't some of Germany's home grown extremists also been outright banned, that is, the heirs to the Nazis? Aren't they still? It's been a long time since any political parties were banned here -- the Communist party has been legal since at least the early 1960s. (Attempts at banning them were made, but it proved too hard to correlate that with the first amendment.) If Germany does continue to grow more diverse, thanks to immigration, it will be interesting to see how long the post-WW2 political consensus holds, since Germany has a rather fractious and disunified history.

As for the US system, it has held for 220 years. The greatest single threat was our Civil War, of course, and it can be argued that Lincoln took more steps directed against civil liberties than any president -- including #43. We must be doing something pretty well right to keep at it that long. I'm hardly likely to be around in 2169, or 2210, to see a democratic Germany's 220th anniversary, but good luck

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, well, as I've said things must be simple in a small country with a simple polity and a homogeneous population. Haven't some of Germany's home grown extremists also been outright banned, that is, the heirs to the Nazis? Aren't they still? It's been a long time since any political parties were banned here -- the Communist party has been legal since at least the early 1960s. (Attempts at banning them were made, but it proved too hard to correlate that with the first amendment.) If Germany does continue to grow more diverse, thanks to immigration, it will be interesting to see how long the post-WW2 political consensus holds, since Germany has a rather fractious and disunified history.

As for the US system, it has held for 220 years. The greatest single threat was our Civil War, of course, and it can be argued that Lincoln took more steps directed against civil liberties than any president -- including #43. We must be doing something pretty well right to keep at it that long. I'm hardly likely to be around in 2169, or 2210, to see a democratic Germany's 220th anniversary, but good luck

Quite frankly - I don't care about Germany that much. They
are a peaceful and rational country as a whole - that's the
only thing I actually care about.

The Neo-Nazis aren't banned over here - they have some parties
and are tolerated based on the constitution. Even if we try to get
rid of those Nazi-Ideas whenever we can - based on experience.

That's not censorship imposed by the Government - it's the democratic
majority arguing against stupidity like Holocaust-Denial.

Anyway: I already see some Admin or Moderator seeking for
their "Yellow Card" - so what do you think about splitting the
thread for a more on-topic discussion before we're doomed
by the rules in here?

 

[SDC]

Well, I don't know what there is to discuss. I don't take Paul seriously as a presidential candidate. (I suspect he doesn't take himself as a serious one, either.) As for comparing political systems, it gets boring being told the way my country works is wrong, wrong, wrong. Especially when people saying that seem ignorant of things, more often than not.

With regard to questions like "what is the best system," sorry; I know too much history to think that question has much validity in particular cases. If you want to start another thread on a political theme, I'll look in; be my guest; prosze bardzo.

 

[Oliver]

Well, I don't know what there is to discuss. I don't take Paul seriously as a presidential candidate. (I suspect he doesn't take himself as a serious one, either.) As for comparing political systems, it gets boring being told the way my country works is wrong, wrong, wrong. Especially when people saying that seem ignorant of things, more often than not.

With regard to questions like "what is the best system," sorry; I know too much history to think that question has much validity in particular cases. If you want to start another thread on a political theme, I'll look in; be my guest; prosze bardzo.

I don't say my country works better - I just tend to think
that Germany's Government is more democratic as the American
one. Now it may surprise you, but....

AMERICA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOCRACY WE HAVE
IN GERMANY NOWADAYS...

So I am grateful for that. I'm just hoping that America adopts
this as well some day in the name of THEIR PEOPLE.

You remember "We the People", don't you?

 

[marksman]

That's not censorship imposed by the Government - it's the democratic
majority...

The democratic majority is the government in a parliamentary democracy like Germany. I am constantly amazed at how few words it takes you to contradict yourself. This one took you precisely eleven. That might be a record.

 

[marksman]

You remember "We the People", don't you?

Yes, I remember "We the People... do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

I don't remember anybody ever suggesting that "We the People" means majorities get to oppress the speech and ability to fully participate in the political process by a reviled minority. Maybe "We the People" translates differently in Germany. Might it be "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles"? I don't speak German.

 

[Oliver]

The democratic majority is the government in a parliamentary democracy like Germany. I am constantly amazed at how few words it takes you to contradict yourself. This one took you precisely eleven. That might be a record.

No, not really. "Fox and free press". See? ...Four words.
Anyway: I didn't contradict myself about democracy and
the fact that there ARE pro-national parties based on Nazi-
Ideas.

But how does this relate to Paul? Wanna start a related
topic to the opposition you have?

 

[Donal]

Not an aide, not a bodyguard in site.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/dec07/lonelinessofronpaul.htm

I don't walk around with security or aides either. And I have only slightly less name recognition than Ron Paul.

Vote for me!