• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Rewards Media Matters with a Political Nomination: Monitoring ELECTIONS

justabubba said:
but isn't that the very crux of your thread
that the nominee came from media matters
Click to expand...

I'm happy to say that the guy running PJ Media shouldn't be put in charge of monitoring elections - he's never going to be perceived as an honest broker. However, that doesn't mean that if I disagree with him (or Media Matters) that I can simply scoff and say "well, he's a liberal/conservative, of course therefore he's wrong in his statement of the facts".

But if you have evidence that this guy has not, in fact, been put forth, I would be interested in seeing it.
 
cpwill said:
I'm happy to say that the guy running PJ Media shouldn't be put in charge of monitoring elections - he's never going to be perceived as an honest broker. However, that doesn't mean that if I disagree with him (or Media Matters) that I can simply scoff and say "well, he's a liberal/conservative, of course therefore he's wrong in his statement of the facts".

But if you have evidence that this guy has not, in fact, been put forth, I would be interested in seeing it.
Click to expand...

so your objection to the source is whether it aligns with your personal political ideology
got it
 
cpwill said:
W..... T...... H......



.....making our election process more partisan weakens the public trust in our system of representative government and represents a direct threat to our form of government. That is why we should utterly smash any election official or candidate found to be manipulating the vote - to not only disincentive it in the future, but to restore trust in the system. This is an incredibly bad appointment.
Click to expand...

There's a lesson to be learned here.
Regarding ISIS, I've been saying there should be a way to draw them together in larger groups to wipe them out easier, faster, and with less ordnance than we're doing now.
Similarly, it occurs to me that if someone wants to wipe out Leftists they could post a piece like this, CP.
They sure do scamper out of their cubbies, don't they?
 
cpwill said:
I'm happy to say that the guy running PJ Media shouldn't be put in charge of monitoring elections - he's never going to be perceived as an honest broker. However, that doesn't mean that if I disagree with him (or Media Matters) that I can simply scoff and say "well, he's a liberal/conservative, of course therefore he's wrong in his statement of the facts".

But if you have evidence that this guy has not, in fact, been put forth, I would be interested in seeing it.
Click to expand...

You can take the partisan out of a partisan organization, but you can't take the partisanship out of the partisan, it's in their core beliefs, part of the belif system.

Some are calling this 'faux outrage'. Given the partisan history of the person, how can they possibly be expected to be an impartial monitor of elections?

It's just as believable that 75% left wing media can manage to be unbiased. It's next to impossible and highly improbably for a human being to be so and do so.
 
justabubba said:
so your objection to the source is whether it aligns with your personal political ideology
got it
Click to expand...

:roll: did you miss the first half of that statement, or are you simply attempting to troll? I am stating pretty clearly that partisans whose presence will discredit the process have no business overseeing elections regardless of which side they are on.
 
cpwill said:
:roll: did you miss the first half of that statement, or are you simply attempting to troll? I am stating pretty clearly that partisans whose presence will discredit the process have no business overseeing elections regardless of which side they are on.
Click to expand...

to you, anyone with a differing political outlook is a partisan
 
Redress said:
First off, Butler has been gone from Media Matters for almost 2 years. Nothing about this is a reward to Media Matters as he had moved on to a different job. Also, he does in fact have relevant experience, despite the claims of the article, having run a presidential campaign for Chris Dodd and being involved in a number of other campaigns. That is what you would call hands on experience from the user side.

But the one that is the most amusing is that you rail against partisanship on the committy, and yet one of the people listed in your source article as a positive example is in fact a registered republican(Davidson). In fact, trying to get some one who is not partisan to some level in a position like this would be for all intents and purposes impossible.
Click to expand...

The point is that the appointee shouldn't highly partisan. This kind of position needs someone who has some level of non-partisanship and Butler is FAR from that. If this was a Rep. President appointing Sean Hannity to the position, most folks on the left would be having a screaming meltdown, but since it's a decision that favors "your" side, you defend it. Crap like this needs to be fought against by ALL Americans and not ignored by some, just because they see a benefit from it. If the worm turns and the next Rep. President starts appointing partisan appointees to positions that NEED to be non-partisan, just remember that you defended this case, so you lose all credibility in any discussion on the issue.
 
faithful_servant said:
The point is that the appointee shouldn't highly partisan. This kind of position needs someone who has some level of non-partisanship and Butler is FAR from that. If this was a Rep. President appointing Sean Hannity to the position, most folks on the left would be having a screaming meltdown, but since it's a decision that favors "your" side, you defend it. Crap like this needs to be fought against by ALL Americans and not ignored by some, just because they see a benefit from it. If the worm turns and the next Rep. President starts appointing partisan appointees to positions that NEED to be non-partisan, just remember that you defended this case, so you lose all credibility in any discussion on the issue.
Click to expand...

So anyone involved in politics or has opinion in politics isn't qualified to ensure it is easier to vote and that equipment is properly tested and vetted. That makes no effing sense whatsoever. Just because someone has a political point of view they must be passed over positions they are qualified for and only people who have no opinion on politics should be able to be appointed to these positions. That is just plain dumb. This appointee is highly qualified for this job. He is an accomplished attorney that specialized in oversight of management compliance to government directives. He is accomplished businessmen having founded and ran a successful political consulting firm. He has been involved in elections almost his entire adult career and was a successful businessman to boot. If we disqualify people like him to serve in positions of government then we might as well pack up our tents because we will only have mediocrity left. Your arguments hold no logical weight.
 
cpwill said:
W..... T...... H......



.....making our election process more partisan weakens the public trust in our system of representative government and represents a direct threat to our form of government. That is why we should utterly smash any election official or candidate found to be manipulating the vote - to not only disincentive it in the future, but to restore trust in the system. This is an incredibly bad appointment.
Click to expand...

This is hope and change in action.
 
American said:
I don't know, but let's talking about these lying bastards. They are definitely mainstream leftwing hack group. How do you feel about them representing you?
Click to expand...

"They" are not representing us. Someone who used to work there got a government job.
 
Kobie said:
"They" are not representing us. Someone who used to work there got a government job.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, I thought you lib lefties weren't really leftwing.
 
Ockham said:
Read the OP.
The position of what?
Click to expand...

So you know exactly nothing about either the topic or the contents of the thread. Please get back to me when that changes.
 
American said:
I don't know, but let's talking about these lying bastards. They are definitely mainstream leftwing hack group. How do you feel about them representing you?
Click to expand...

2rwtfma.jpg
 
US Conservative said:
This is hope and change in action.
Click to expand...

No this is example 9,583,252,124 of how ridiculous and inane the rights "arguments" against the President have become.
 
This would be akin to a right-wing prez appointing Andrew Breitbart or Rush Limbaugh to run the EAC. to wit, pathologically duplicitous leftists would immediately succumb to apoplectic seizures.
 
smb said:
So anyone involved in politics or has opinion in politics isn't qualified to ensure it is easier to vote and that equipment is properly tested and vetted. That makes no effing sense whatsoever. Just because someone has a political point of view they must be passed over positions they are qualified for and only people who have no opinion on politics should be able to be appointed to these positions. That is just plain dumb. This appointee is highly qualified for this job. He is an accomplished attorney that specialized in oversight of management compliance to government directives. He is accomplished businessmen having founded and ran a successful political consulting firm. He has been involved in elections almost his entire adult career and was a successful businessman to boot. If we disqualify people like him to serve in positions of government then we might as well pack up our tents because we will only have mediocrity left. Your arguments hold no logical weight.
Click to expand...

Not anywhere near what I said. This is a position that should be free of as much partisan bias as possible, yet it was handed to someone who's biggest job to date has been to run a HIGHLY partisan website. It's a BAD choice, one that leaves the position open to accusation and questions. There are a LOT of people out there who are just as qualified, but don't carry the baggage the Butler does, so why make a choice that's guaranteed to bring heat to the position??? This is FAR from the first time this kind of thing has happened and it's a pattern that is bad for this country, not just because of which side of the aisle it's comong from, but for the precedent it sets, that of putting partisanship over what's best for the WHOLE nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom