to debate or not to debate?

Spread the love

That is the question…

The media would have you believe that the most important qualification for
political office is the ability to debate on Television.

The truth is far from that and as usual the media have managed to at least
attempt to convince most of the viewing public that debating is the number
one consideration in choosing a candidate.

The fact is that debating in a hostile environment is likely not very practical at
all, in the last debate one of the candidates decided to skip the event, it did not
seem to matter at all.

What I find interesting is that when you see a debate where the moderators are
biased, and the main agenda is to craft a presentation that creates the impression
that one candidate or another has some magic favor that no one really understands.

They do polls that are subjective but are presented as if they were fact instead of
bad scientific guesses that frequently are skewed in favor of the paying party.

Ask a certain question and you will get a certain answer.

So in reality you really cannot trust a poll, because it is really just a representation
of the opinion of the prevailing party.  Yet you often see Fox news talk about how
this poll or that poll tells the story, but in reality it really only tells the story that
the person who paid to have the poll performed.

Who wants to pay for data that does not support their position and agenda right?

Well that sums it up nicely, because for the most part when you see someone
talk about what a polls says it usually means that they have a dog in the hunt.

When I see one of these bobble heads on the news quote a particular poll, the first
thing I consider is how many people were contacted, what time of day was it, where were
they living, in an area that is mostly democratic, or mostly independent, or mostly one view
or another.

The truth may be stranger than fiction…