It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Focus on Facts?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:57 PM
Why do we have a focus on facts on the main page for McCain and Obama, but not so much as a sidebar for 3rd Party Candidates? I find it very...interesting...that a website that generates so much talk about the negatives of the "lesser-evil" system and the government as a whole isn't even making a token effort to educate it's visitors about other options. I would say there are certainly enough members here who would gladly fill such a forum with information.

I do understand that ATS is a business venture, and as such, there are considerations that go with that. But still...I guess it makes me think that this "oversight," as well as several other actions Ive seen here of late concerning politics, rather reveals what sort of "change" the administrators of ATS support. Sad, when ATS could be a crucial resource for real change.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:17 PM
Two Party System; thats why. its one of the stupidest things ever in regards to politics. plus the way the house casts its votes make citizen voting near void.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:26 PM
But that's my point! ATS would be a perfect place to disseminate alternatives, and yet what have we?

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:16 PM
oh yeah. Ron Paul gets a nice name drop with the recent financials, but that is usually the extent of it. i know he is not up for vote, he just stood the best chance is all. I studied journalism and communications at Western Carolina and i remember a very specific clause in broadcast requirements in regaurds to air time for candidates of office.

for every minute you give to one guy, you must give an equal opportunity for the other candidate to buy airtime as well. notice i said to buy air time.

the same clause is in effect if you donate your airtime for their cause, which is never the case.

I feel that we at ATS are among the 1337. we are strong and willing to ask dumb questions to find real answers. I stand here today with saturnine and call out to those with a shred of decency:

why take a stance on the lesser of two evils. would the government machine breakdown with someone not on the payroll in office? or would it be the jumpstart we sorely need? place your ideas now!


posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 10:13 PM
Oh, I get what you're saying about "the media." But I guess I was thinking, or at least hoping, that the issue might get a different treatment by the administrators of ATS. But I sort of like your angle, too. We can make this thread one about the Third Party candidates, at least.

You've mentioned Ron Paul, and, as you said, he's not in the running now. However, he has endorsed the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. Personally, I'm not wild about Baldwin, but I think his policies are far better for the US than either McCain or Obama, so, as of right now, I'm eaning that way. Sure, it's pretty impossible for him to win, but that's not the point. The point is breaking the stranglehold the two party system has on the process.

Besides Baldwin, there is also Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr. There are some things I like about Barr, too, but he seems too inconsistent to trust that he is doing anything more than trying to get in on the ground floor of a movement he thinks will come to power. But, obviously, I encourage everyone to make their own decisions.

The Green Parry has Cynthia McKinney, who, I might note, is a great deal more black than the half-white Obama. Not that I think race should have anything to do with the Presidency, but I am also a realist and know that it DOES matter to some, both as a positive and a negative. In general, I am not fond of the Green Party. I find their policies tend to be based on their personal opinions and emotions, while I prefer a candidate who's policies reflect an interest in establishing freedom for all to have their own opinions.

Of course, we can't forget Ralph Nader. Previously a Green Party candidate, and now running as an Independent, I find his policies to still be pretty much inline with the Green Party, except he's incorporated some sound policies on some current prominent issues that diverge a little from the Green Party, as I understand it. Again, not someone I'm fond of, but I'm pretty picky, I suppose.

I don't think I'm forgetting any that are going to be on the ballot in any states, am I? If so, please feel free to add to this list. And again, I want to say, while many will tell you that voting third-party is a wasted vote, a third party vote is the ONLY way to ever peacefully break the shackles that have been put on our freedom. Know, too, that only a small fraction of the populace votes; should a third party ever manage to motivate a large enough section of the non-voting public, the could very easily make the elections far more interesting than anyone expects. But if that is going to happen, it's going to start with each of us who desires REAL change spreading the word. Media institutions have shown, time and again, that they have no interest in changing anything.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by saturnine_sweet

There is discussion that takes place in regards to alternate candidates. Your assertion that states otherwise is simply not true.

The following three threads were started by members yesterday:

The Candidates and the Constitution - Bob Barr

Chuck Baldwin: Platform and Stance on Issues

Meet the OTHER candidates!

Remember, content on ATS is member-generated.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by maria_stardust

And users set up the "Focus on Facts" section on the main page? Content is user-generated, layout is not, as far as I understand? There is a difference between content users dig for and content splashed across the main page.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by saturnine_sweet

I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

As for the layout, bear in mind there is a limited amount of space on that page. Before the A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS decree was issued, the home page practically consisted of nothing but political threads. Visitors to the were hard pressed to view ATS as a conspiracy site. Hence, the "Focus on Facts" section was created as a compromise between those seeking a political arena and alternative topics.

As you can see, the "Focus on Facts" section still consumes a considerable amount of valuable real estate space. Additionally, it focuses on the two main candidates because that was whom the majority of political threads were based upon.

I hope that clears things up.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by maria_stardust]

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 11:14 PM
It does, basically by reiterating what I said about business considerations vs. mission statements, if you will. The same disappointing logic as the mainstream media uses to justify only covering the "newsworthy" candidates. With no initial coverage, nothing can become newsworthy. Ah well.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by saturnine_sweet

This has very little, if anything, to do with the site's business mission, and more to do with the fact that ATS is first and foremost a conspiracy site, not a political one.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Also, keep in mind ATS is not the main stream media.

My best advice is to create dynamite threads about alternative candidates that generate intense membership interest. Threads that do this will eventually find their way onto the front page.

new topics

top topics


log in