Re:Charles Lindbergh is the reason the U.S. doesn't have cam...
by alphabettsy on Saturday October 17, 2020 @12:30AM
(#24807496)
I tend to agree with you. Too often politicians are playing to the cameras hoping for a soundbite rather than engaging in substantive debate.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Charles Lindbergh is the reason the U.S. doesn't have cam...
by 082349872349872 on Saturday October 17, 2020 @02:21AM
(#24807828)
Would conducting legislative business via IRC (or text-only Slack/Discord) be a substantive improvement?
(or would legislators wind up texting A/S/L and deploying filibuster bots?)
Re:Charles Lindbergh is the reason the U.S. doesn't have cam...
by Aunche on Saturday October 17, 2020 @04:23AM
(#24808398)
Everything would be the same except it's not recorded. A transcript can provide transparency but would be much harder to sensationalize.
Re:Charles Lindbergh is the reason the U.S. doesn't have cam...
by C19is20 on Saturday October 17, 2020 @05:31AM
(#24808765)
I've never voted, never will. Mainly because politicians don't really debate: that being, to convince an opposition to change their minds. I know sometimes politicians have gone against their party's wishes, but I can't see those being as a result of a well constructed idea from the opposition.
Re:Charles Lindbergh is the reason the U.S. doesn't have cam...
by eru on Saturday October 17, 2020 @08:52AM
(#24809590)
From what I can tell, there's plenty of that kind of debating done in German politics. Especially also because coalition governments are the norm.
Would you vote there?
Re:Charles Lindbergh is the reason the U.S. doesn't have cam...
by alphabettsy on Saturday October 17, 2020 @01:31PM
(#24811602)
This may have some truth in national politics, but state and certainly local politics have much more substantive discussions.