Who won tonights Presidential Debate? 9/26

[Mozgus]

Ignoring the entire race, and not voting at all is the ONLY responsible choice. If you vote for the lesser of two dipshits, you're only telling your government to spew out more dipshits just like him/her in the future. People do notice when the majority of the nation doesn't vote, and that's the only chance we have for a decent party to take notice and take advantage of it. If you vote for someone you hate less than another, you're still hurting your country.

[dsheinem]

I am not anti politics, i am anti-politician. they are all a bunch of shady bastards that are out to fuck you. it doesn't matter which one you vote for. i am not looking forward to the next 4-8 years. the last 20 have been depressing enough.

This over-generalizes things - and just isn't true. It can also be read as an excuse to tune out elections. I think many things WOULD be different (some things better, others worse) if we had voted for Gore over Bush, for example.

I have worked in advisory roles in campaigns in the past - some politicians are indeed ego-centric and out to make a name for themselves (to get more influence, the next office, etc.) - these politicians actually generate and feed on public apathy because less people will call them out for their BS. On the other hand, I've worked with candidates who do indeed want to make their neighborhoods, counties, state, etc. better or try to fix specific problems. I get the impression you see this kind of attitude in Ron Paul. But despite his "no one else is like me" rhetoric, he isn't the only one who is interested in more than just a power grab.

I'd even venture that both presidential candidates are, at some level, genuinely interested in helping you, not fucking you. The problem is they have to run campaigns that have to increasingly play to the middle in order to actually win the election, and this tactic generates the same apathy by those who feel strongly about their political positions.

I understand why people like Paul, Nader, Perot, etc. - they are important voices in our politics because they speak their mind and introduce attractive, bold ideas. But their failure to generate enough interest/media attention is because of their inability to fit into the existing political discourse. They are pushing for sweeping radical changes, whereas someone like Obama (and, somehow, McCain) are pushing for more incremental changes in specific policies.

[Ack]

I can't remember who the Libertarians and Constitutionalists are putting up this election, come to think of it.

Wait, no, it's Bob Barr for the Libertarians. I still don't remember who the Constitutionalists are putting up, though I did sign their petition to allow their candidate on the ballot in my state.

[racketboy]

Just a warning: Any heavy debating and this thread is closed.

Just curious - why?

Debating is healthy. Even online debating - which can indeed devolve into name-calling and posturing - can be a fruitful place for people to articulate their positions, ask questions, etc. I think the people on these forums, by in large, are mature enough to police themselves and one another. It certainly keeps fanboy wars from taking off.

I guess I am just angered by apathy, and even more by people who are "anti-politics" - political decision making, like it or not, effects many things in your life and the lives of others. Not caring at all or giving up on the current version of political discourse in this country (which is generally horrible) is just not a responsible position.

Could you just sticky a political discussion thread and leave it at that? People not interested certainly don't have to read the thread.

It depends on how it's handled. When things start getting personal and people are putting down people's beliefs and convictions, it can get ugly.

[disorderlyvision]

I am not anti politics, i am anti-politician. they are all a bunch of shady bastards that are out to fuck you. it doesn't matter which one you vote for. i am not looking forward to the next 4-8 years. the last 20 have been depressing enough.

This over-generalizes things - and just isn't true. It can also be read as an excuse to tune out elections. I think many things WOULD be different (some things better, others worse) if we had voted for Gore over Bush, for example.

I have worked in advisory roles in campaigns in the past - some politicians are indeed ego-centric and out to make a name for themselves (to get more influence, the next office, etc.) - these politicians actually generate and feed on public apathy because less people will call them out for their BS. On the other hand, I've worked with candidates who do indeed want to make their neighborhoods, counties, state, etc. better or try to fix specific problems. I get the impression you see this kind of attitude in Ron Paul. But despite his "no one else is like me" rhetoric, he isn't the only one who is interested in more than just a power grab.

I'd even venture that both presidential candidates are, at some level, genuinely interested in helping you, not fucking you. The problem is they have to run campaigns that have to increasingly play to the middle in order to actually win the election, and this tactic generates the same apathy by those who feel strongly about their political positions.

I understand why people like Paul, Nader, Perot, etc. - they are important voices in our politics because they speak their mind and introduce attractive, bold ideas. But their failure to generate enough interest/media attention is because of their inability to fit into the existing political discourse. They are pushing for sweeping radical changes, whereas someone like Obama (and, somehow, McCain) are pushing for more incremental changes in specific policies.

I don't think it over generalizes. i think it is a fairly accurate statement. there are a few decent politicians, very few, such as ron paul and the like. and i am not "tuning out" elections. i am very politically active and pay close attention to the scumbags in washington. i don't like ron paul because he is "different". i like him because his views are nearly identical to mine.
i would venture that neither of the main candidates are interested in "helping" me. bottom line is neither of them represent my views. obama is a socialist who will try to restrict guns and raise taxes. if you don't think so look at Illinois it is one of the most fascist states in the nation. believe me i live right on the missouri side of the mississippi and am in IL a lot and have relatives that live by chicago. cook county is the states biggest problem. McCain is just as bad. they are both worthless when it comes to foreign policy and economics.
I am a libertarian at heart, but Bob Barr somehow got their nomination, and he is restrictive as well, so i wont be voting for him. Nader is a fruitcake. there are no viable third party candidates this go around. as i said ron paul will be my write in candidate, because i couldn't in good conscience vot for any of the major or third party candidates running for office.

you know why these politicians don't give a fuck about the citizens and pretend the constituion doesnt exist. lobbyist! nothing more than political bribery. and who do you think politicians are going to represent. me? you? or the people throwing money at them like it is going out of style? Big Business runs this country.

[jwc]

eh idk
Ron paul 2012

[Hatta]

I thought they were both master debaters.

I was going to say exactly what Mozgus did. If you have to vote, vote 3rd party. The 2 party system is killing America.

[claudio]

I thought they were both master debaters.

I was going to say exactly what Mozgus did. If you have to vote, vote 3rd party. The 2 party system is killing America.

mabye if you have to vote, you should vote with however you want to vote for,

also many people like obama and mccain, so why should they have to vote for 3rd party (im not saying 3rd party is in any way) if they really do like obama or mccain?

also, as a independent, i dont vote based on party, i vote based on who is going to really help this country and in my opinion obama can do it and im comfortable with that although i like Ralph Nader, Obama would be a better leader in my opinion and especially with foreign policy.

[SpaceBooger]

I thought they were both master debaters.

I was going to say exactly what Mozgus did. If you have to vote, vote 3rd party. The 2 party system is killing America.

Sometimes I think the party system, no matter how many, are killing America.
I don't like the fact that being part of a party give me the "the rest of the party is voting for it, maybe I should too" vibe.... and we all know the saying about everybody else jumping off a bridge.

[claudio]

I thought they were both master debaters.

I was going to say exactly what Mozgus did. If you have to vote, vote 3rd party. The 2 party system is killing America.

Sometimes I think the party system, no matter how many, are killing America.
I don't like the fact that being part of a party give me the "the rest of the party is voting for it, maybe I should too" vibe.... and we all know the saying about everybody else jumping off a bridge.

and these days parties of full of bs, its left democrats, far left democrats, far right democrats, liberal democrats, very liberal democrats, conservative.................

shit, Lieberman is a democrat, who is registered independent or some shit and is voting for mccain because its his buddy.

what it really comes down to is the person, not the party who we should vote for.