The most that its actually contributed is word clouds of popular terms in between rounds, it hasn't actually changed the structure of the debate at all.
You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
cannot into space
I do like the idea of the You Tube submitted "top questions" though.
Go play Kentucky Route Zero. Now.
Oh, you mean they're taking surveys from the Internet and using them for information in the debates?
Why not, but we shouldn't depend on it as the primary method.
Now using Trivialis handle.
I changed accounts.
WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF TOMORROW!
edited 22nd Sep '11 8:09:44 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.
USAF@ Atom Punk? I was thinking Post Cyber Punk
edited 22nd Sep '11 8:18:32 PM by joyflower
I changed accounts.
Proud Canadian
Post Cyber Punk?
That is the most fucking prententious thing I've heard in a week.
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
Not really because maybe we can get some Magic from Technology then our elections would be more interesting.
edited 22nd Sep '11 8:24:27 PM by joyflower
Proud Canadian
No, it's the term.
Cyber Punk is aleardy a sub genre. Postpostrock sounds silly, and so does Post Cyber Punk.
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
.
cannot into space
This is like the ultimate advertisement for Google: I can't think of a better advertisement for the Republican side of our country than sponsoring their whole debate.
Go play Kentucky Route Zero. Now.
What I found interesting is that by taking questions voted on by a select minority of the general public rather than questions created by pundits. Both the pundits and today's question contributors asked tough questions that gave plenty of opportunity to bash each other and President Obama, but there seemed to me to be a fundamental difference.
Pundits often tend to ask more queestions specific to each candidate. The contribultors' questions, on the other hand, were, on the whole, probably at least a somewhat better representation of what Republican primary voters really wanted to know. For me it was revealing in a way that you don't always see.
But while innovative, I don't see this as necessarily being a big deal. What is different is that rather than using a study group, it was done through web - based social networking, IMHO, the "dominant fad" of our era.
This thread is not about the politics of the Republican debate. It is not about who sucketh, or who is great, or who makes no sense whatsoever.
No, this thread is about the fact that the republican debate is currently working with Google. They are taking You Tube submitted questions, using Google search polls for research, and just generally working Google in in many different ways.
Is this a good thing? Should we see more of this?
Go play Kentucky Route Zero. Now.