Интересно. Посмотрим, что из этого получится. Если бы ему разрешили участвовать в следующих дебатах, было бы неплохо.
Да ничего особенного не получится. На этих выборах пять процентов, на следующих пять с половиной, потом шесть... Жернова господни мелют медленно.
То, что его не выберут, нет сомнений, но людям полезно было бы знать альтернативы.
Когда мужик не Блюхера, и не милорда глупого - Белинского и Гоголя С базара понесет!
а что толку? У Рона Пола было под 20%, и его альтернатива была вполне реальна, в отличие от. Но система под это не заточена увы.
Очевидно, что многие недовольны теперешним состоянием вещей. Надо, чтобы они видели альтернативы.
тогда тоже многие были уже недовольны, а толку-то
Джонсону бы не ждать у моря погоды, а провести альтернативные дебаты со Стейн. У них на двоих 10-20% аудитории, это солидный рейтинг. Они уже это делали в прошлом цикле, причем на РТ.
Максимум 10% -- у Джонсона где-то 8 и у Стайн 1-2.
Он что-такое вроде и устроил в пареллели с основным дебатом.
Но, подозреваю, Трамповские ужимки и прыжки просто гораздо интереснее смотреть.

Про РТ не знал. Хм..
Ну так леваки же, известное дело. Плюс, агенты гебни.

В его оправдание, гебистская сущность РТ в 2012, может быть, менее очевидна была.
Во многих фиолетовых штатах у Джонсона >15%. Его лучший штат, ест. собственный - New Mexico, где у него сейчас 24.

Нет сомнений, что больше народа будут смотреть основной дебат, это развлекательнее. Я говорю о том, что при этом есть основания ожидать вполне приемлемой аудитории для Дж-С дебатов: не рекордной, но приемлемой для трансляции. А это подогрело бы интерес публики к ним обоим.

РТ - ни один мейнстримный канал не счел это мероприятие заслуживающим внимания. Каким-то образом!?
The system is rigged for the two main parties, no argument about it. Even nominating some-one like Trump, who is not even supported by his own party, does not push people to look at alternatives.

Perhaps in 2012 there was still some sense that RT was not purely a Putin's propaganda channel, so I will give him a pass on that.
But people do look at alternatives this cycle! As demonstrated by the third-parties polling numbers.

some-one like Trump, who is not even supported by his own party
But that's NOT his party! That's a very natural and common misunderstanding. Rather, Trump is a third-party (Reform) candidate who took over a Republican ballot line; that's it.

RT/Putin: What difference would editorial policy of a channel as a whole make, if the program is unedited? For people locked out of MSM, any viewership is an opportunity, they can't by picky, Putin or whatever. Same with Assange/Snowden.

But that's NOT his party! That's a very natural and common misunderstanding. Rather, Trump is a third-party (Reform) candidate who took over a Republican ballot line; that's it.


He was nominated by the republican party and beat several mainstream republicans. That's a fact. Anything else is just wordplay. Perhaps the Republican party will split into two in the future, who knows.

TV: My view is that RT is too tainted by outright falsehoods and propaganda to be a forum for any principled discussion.





And in my view, you are making the similar logical mistake (begging the question) in both instances.

RT: You're saying that because it is known/assumed that RT has propaganda and lies elsewhere, it should not have lies/prop-free or at least lies/prop-light forum either. Why? To the contrary, it is because it lacks non-biased content, what makes it propagandist. Conversely, if we start with the level of program, and not channel, then of course introducing less lying program improves quality of a channel.

Or, in another example, I recently wrote about propaganda in NYT. I'm still reading it, perhaps with greater awareness.

Party: We've started here with your comment: Trump, who is not even supported by his own party, does not push people to look at alternatives. This is again inverse causation: It is because he is already an alternative, that republican party doesn't support him. This is evidence, not contradiction.
RT: The problem is not that RT lacks good content. The problem is that they don't want unbiased content. As a parallel, if an honest and law-abiding person appears in the company of thieves and bandits, that does not make bandits more reputable but is likely to make that person less reputable.

Party: I am not sure what we are arguing about here. Clearly Trump is not a mainstream republican as his views are different from those of republican leadership and those typical of GOP in recent years. On the other hand, he is clearly a republican as he is a member of the party and has been nominated (competitively) by the GOP.